United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

August 2010 

Environmental 

Assessment 

Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project 

Hell Canyon Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest 

Custer County, South Dakota 

For Information Contact: Jeff Tomac, Range Program Manager 

1225 Washington Blvd., Newcastle, WY 82701 

(307) 746-2782 

www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-

3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and 

employer. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

i 

Table of Contents 

Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need .................................................................................................... 3 

Document Structure ................................................................................................................ 3 

Background ............................................................................................................................. 3 

Project Area Description ......................................................................................................... 5 

Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................. 6 

Proposed Action .................................................................................................................... 12 

Decision Framework ............................................................................................................. 13 

Public Involvement ............................................................................................................... 14 

Issues .................................................................................................................................... 15 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 17 

Alternatives Considered in Detail ......................................................................................... 17 

Project Design Criteria to Ensure Environmental Protection ............................................... 37 

Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 39 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................. 42 

Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences................................................................................ 51 

Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 51 

Soil and Water ...................................................................................................................... 54 

Rangelands ............................................................................................................................ 76 

Botany ................................................................................................................................... 95 

Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 102 

Fisheries .............................................................................................................................. 122 

Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 126 

Livestock Grazing and Economics ..................................................................................... 130 

Climate Change .................................................................................................................. 136 

Glossary .............................................................................................................................. 141 

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................ 162 

Consultation and Coordination ........................................................................................... 162 

List of Preparers .................................................................................................................. 162 

Chapter 5 – References ........................................................................................................... 164 

Appendix A: Allotment Maps ................................................................................................. 173 

Appendix B: Allotment Monitoring Plans .............................................................................. 185 

Appendix C: Scoping Comment Categorization ..................................................................... 193 

Appendix D: Applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and Watershed 

Conservation Practices ............................................................................................................ 205 

Appendix E: Summary of Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects from 

Implementing Adaptive Management Options ....................................................................... 216 

Appendix F: Response to Public Comments on July 2010 Environmental 

Assessment 220

List of Tables

Table 1. National Forest management area acreage/percent within the Range 2010 Project 

area ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Table 2. Desired conditions for vegetative communities within the project area ............... 9
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

ii 

Table 3. Current grazing management on all allotments that would continue under 

alternative 2 ....................................................................................................................... 20

Table 4. Possible adaptive management options for use with alternative 3 (proposed 

action) ............................................................................................................................... 22

Table 5. Alternative 3 proposed actions by allotment ...................................................... 23

Table 6. Proper allowable use guidelines (percent utilization by weight each year) ........ 39

Table 7. Comparison of alternatives by components, primary project objectives and key 

issues ................................................................................................................................. 45

Table 8. Summary of environmental impacts ................................................................... 48

Table 9. On-going, in-progress, and planned activities considered for the Hell Canyon 

Range 2010 Project ........................................................................................................... 53

Table 10. Affected environment summary by allotment .................................................. 58

Table 11. Comparison of alternatives by soil and water measurement indicators ............ 75

Table 12. Suitable and capable acres and stocking rates per allotment ............................ 80

Table 13. Sensitive, SOLC, and State-listed plants relevant to the Hell Canyon Range 

2010 Project, based on known occurrences or habitat suitability ..................................... 97

Table 14. Sensitive species, SOLC, MIS, migratory birds and PF, and demand species 

that occur or have the potential to occur in the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project Area, 

based on habitat preferences ........................................................................................... 105

Table 15. Summary of effects to wildlife species by alternative .................................... 111

Table 16. Fish and suitable habitat in the analysis area (SDGFP 2009) ......................... 123

Table 17. Comparison of economic cost (PNV) by alternative for each allotment ........ 134

Table B-1. Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project individual allotment monitoring plans .... 185

Table C-1. Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project public scoping summary ......................... 193

Proper allowable use guidelines (percent utilization by weight each year) .................... 209

Table E-1: Summary of environmental effects from implementation of proposed adaptive 

management options under Alternative 3 ....................................................................... 216

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Range 2010 Project vicinity ........................................................................................ 4 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

1

SUMMARY 

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to reauthorize domestic livestock grazing on six 

allotments on the Hell Canyon Ranger District in Custer County, SD. The allotments 

include Bull Flats, French Creek, Lithograph, Lower Beaver, Tepee, and Water Draw. 

The Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project area is approximately 106,850 acres in size; 

105,900 acres are National Forest System (NFS) land and 950 acres are interspersed 

private land. The project area is located near Custer, SD, and Newcastle, WY; the main 

east-west access through the project area is US Highway 16 (figure 1). 

Livestock grazing is an authorized use of NFS lands on the Black Hills National Forest. 

The purpose of the project is to authorize livestock grazing on these six allotments and to 

ensure grazing is conducted in an environmentally acceptable manner. The Forest Service 

rangeland allotment management process calls for periodic reviews of allotment 

conditions and management practices. All of these allotments are due for environmental 

review, and if necessary, current rangeland management practices would be revised. The 

underlying needs for this proposal include: 

 Improve livestock management so that it is consistent with the Forest Plan.

 Improve bank stability and increase riparian vegetation diversity and abundance 

in specific areas so spring and stream health, wildlife habitat, and riparian 

ecosystem conditions are moving toward desired conditions.

 Improve administration of the French Creek Allotment and minimize conflicts 

with private landowners, where feasible and practical. 

In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the consequences of 

removing all livestock (Alternative 1 – No Action) and continuing with current 

management (Alternative 2 – Current Management). 

This environmental assessment presents results of an analysis of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental consequences of all alternatives. Based upon the effects of the 

alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether or not to continue to authorize 

livestock grazing on none, all, or portions of the six allotments; and if so, what adaptive 

management actions and monitoring would be included to help meet or move toward 

meeting Forest Plan objectives.

Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

3

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED 

Document Structure ______________________________ 

The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws 

and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental 

impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is 

organized into five parts: 

 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need: The section includes information on the history 

of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the Agency’s 

proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the 

Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. 

 Chapter 2 – Alternatives: This section provides a more detailed description of the 

Agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated 

purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by 

the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation 

measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental 

consequences associated with each alternative. 

 Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences: This section describes the 

environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. 

This analysis is organized by resources with potential to be affected by proposed 

actions. Within each section the affected environment is described first, followed 

by the effects of the no-action alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation 

and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. 

 Chapter 4 – Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of 

preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the EA. 

 Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the 

analyses presented in the EA. 

Background _____________________________________ 

The Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project (project or Range 2010 Project) falls under the 

authority and guidelines of the 1996 schedule the Forest Service provided the United 

States Congress in response to the 1995 Rescission Act. The 1995 Rescission Act 

directed the Forest Service to complete environmental analysis on grazing allotments on 

NFS lands. This project is for the last 6 allotments (out of the 46 allotments on the Hell 

Canyon Ranger District) that need environmental analysis completed under the 

Rescission Act. 

All proposed actions within the Range 2010 Project apply to NF lands only. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

4 Figure 1. Range 2010 Project vicinity
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

5 

Project Area Description __________________________ 

Precipitation across the project area ranges from 15 to 22 inches per year, most of which 

occurs during May and June. Due largely to the limestone geology of the area, most 

streams are intermittent or ephemeral. There are some perennial stream segments, 

however, primarily on the French Creek Allotment. Elevations range from 4,400 feet to 

6,200 feet. Topography is similar among the allotments characterized by rolling hills, 

forested canyon slopes, grassy drainage bottoms, and some natural meadows. Wildfires 

during 2000–2002 burned portions of the Lithograph, Lower Beaver, Tepee, and Water 

Draw Allotments; the Tepee Allotment was most affected with over 70 percent burned. 

Range capability is a tool used at the allotment level to identify where forage is available 

and how management can affect use of that forage. Capable acres for each of the six 

allotments were reviewed using the latest GIS data available. Factors such as tree canopy 

cover, vegetative type and production, slope, and aspect are used, in combination with 

actual use adjustments through the history of the allotments, in determining carrying 

capacity. Each allotment contains some areas that are not capable for grazing; the acres 

listed below for each allotment indicate the size of the allotment only and not necessarily 

the total area grazed. Rangeland capability and suitability are discussed in detail in 

chapter 3. 

The Bull Flats Allotment is located approximately 6 miles southwest of Custer, SD, and 

includes a total of 9,464 acres, of which 9,242 acres are NFS land and 222 acres are 

private land. Approximately 23 percent of the allotment is not available for grazing (e.g., 

inaccessible or unused due to steep and rocky terrain). 

The French Creek Allotment is located approximately 1 mile west of Custer, SD, and 

includes a total of 10,128 acres, all of which is NFS land. While not part of the allotment, 

there are many private land parcels interspersed throughout the area. Approximately 28 

percent of the allotment is not available for grazing (e.g., steep and rocky terrain or 

inaccessible). 

The Lithograph Allotment is located approximately 18 miles east of Newcastle, WY, 

near the southwest corner of Jewel Cave National Monument, SD. It encompasses 

approximately 16,676 acres, of which 16,668 are NFS land and 8 acres are private land. 

Approximately 25 percent of the allotment is not available for grazing (e.g., inaccessible 

and/or unused due to steep and rocky terrain). 

The Lower Beaver Allotment is located approximately 9 miles east of Newcastle, WY, 

in Custer and Pennington Counties, SD. It encompasses approximately 33,037acres, of 

which 32,554 acres are NFS land and 483 acres are private land. Approximately 32 

percent of the allotment is not available for grazing (e.g. inaccessible and/or unused due 

to steep and rocky terrain). 

The Tepee Allotment is located approximately 13 miles east of Newcastle, WY, and 

primarily north of US Highway 16 in South Dakota. It encompasses approximately 

29,386 acres, of which 29,148 acres are NFS land and 238 acres are private land. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

6 

Approximately 24 percent of the allotment is not available for grazing (e.g., inaccessible 

and/or unused due to steep and rocky terrain). 

The Water Draw Allotment is located approximately 8 miles west of Custer, SD, and 

includes a total of 8,157 acres, of which all are NFS land. Approximately 16 percent of 

the allotment is not available for grazing (e.g., inaccessible and/or unused due to steep 

and rocky terrain). Livestock are currently not being grazed on the Water Draw 

Allotment and there is no current permit. 

Purpose and Need for Action _______________________ 

The Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended 

(hereinafter referred to as Forest Plan and cited as “USDA Forest Service 2007”) 

provides direction for the management of the Forest. The Forest Plan contains 

management goals and objectives, management area direction, and desired conditions for 

the Forest (appendix D). Resource specialists reviewed the current condition of the 

project area and compared these conditions with the desired conditions identified in the 

Forest Plan, as well as other applicable goals and objectives. Opportunities for 

improvement were identified. 

Livestock grazing is an authorized use of NFS lands. Goal 3 of the Forest Plan states that 

sustained commodity uses should be provided in an environmentally acceptable manner 

and that rangelands should be maintained in satisfactory range condition. Commodities, 

including livestock, contribute to the economies of local and regional communities. 

Because sustained commodity production depends on sustainable ecosystems, the Forest 

Plan further directs that livestock grazing would occur without impairing the health of 

ecosystems and in a manner compatible with other Forest uses. 

Therefore, the purpose of the project is to authorize livestock grazing on the Bull Flats, 

French Creek, Lithograph, Lower Beaver, Tepee, and Water Draw Allotments and to 

ensure grazing is conducted in an environmentally acceptable manner. In order to 

determine site-specific need for action in the project area, existing and desired conditions 

have been described and compared, as summarized below. 

Management History 

Prior to the 1960s, livestock grazing in the Black Hills was season-long and free-ranging; 

cattle were typically turned out in the spring and gathered in the fall with little 

management. This resulted in high utilization in many areas. Since then, more intensive 

management has occurred and all allotments are showing stable or improving trends, 

although high utilization is still evident in some riparian areas, as discussed in more detail 

in the existing condition section later in this chapter. 

Bull Flats Allotment. On the Bull Flats Allotment, a three-pasture rest-rotation system 

was started in 1964 and the latest allotment management plan (AMP) was prepared in 

1989. Since 2001, the allotment has been managed as a four-pasture deferred-rotation 

system with a use period of June 1–October 31. The last AMP was approved in 1989. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

7 

French Creek Allotment. A rest rotation system started on the French Creek Allotment 

in 1960 and continued through 2007. In 2007, it was changed to a deferred rotation 

grazing system with a use period of June 1–September 30. The amount and distribution 

of private land parcels throughout the French Creek Allotment makes management 

difficult in this area. The last AMP was approved in 1991. 

Lithograph Allotment. A management plan in 1970 for the Lithograph Allotment 

changed season-long management to a deferred rotation system. In 1982, the allotment 

was divided into two separate allotments, Lithograph and Water Draw. Adjustments were 

made in 2002 due to wildfires (shortened season and reduced numbers) and in 2003 a 3 

pasture deferred rotation system was implemented. The last AMP was approved in 1992. 

Lower Beaver Allotment. The Lower Beaver Allotment changed from season-long to a 

two-pasture deferred-rotation system in 1973. Numbers and season of use were altered in 

2000–2002 due to wildfires. An AMP was prepared in 1991 with a deferred rotation 

system and a use period of June 11–September 30. Numbers were reduced during 2002–

2006 due to wildfires. The last AMP was approved in 1991. 

Tepee Allotment. The Tepee Allotment changed from season-long grazing in 1970 to a 

two-pasture deferred rotation grazing system. The allotment currently has four pastures; 

Deadhorse Flats, Gillette Canyon, Antelope Ridge and the Hill pasture (Old Tract C), 

which was added in 1997. The Deadhorse Flats and Gillette Canyon pastures are run 

together with Antelope Ridge pasture as a two pasture deferred rotation grazing system 

and the Hill Pasture is run individually. Numbers and season of use were temporarily 

altered in the years between 2001-2006 due to wildfires and drought. The last AMP was 

approved in 1991. 

Water Draw Allotment. The Water Draw Allotment has had a distribution problem 

historically. It became its own allotment (separated from the Lithograph Allotment) in 

1982. Livestock were shifted to the Hell Canyon Allotment in 2000–2001. The allotment 

was unstocked in 2002–2003, but was again used in 2004 and 2005; it has not been used 

since 2005. The last AMP was approved in 1970. 

Existing conditions on all allotments is a reflection of past and current land management. 

Vegetation data collected through “similarity indices” are indicative of stable rangeland 

that has suffered past heavy grazing in concentrated areas. Past heavy grazing in 

concentrated areas (due to poor distribution and season-long grazing prior to the 1960s), 

created the plant species composition and abundance seen today. The return of certain 

grass species and other native vegetation indicates improving range conditions over the 

last 40 years. Soil stability and ecological processes are functioning properly on all six 

allotments. 

Desired Conditions 

Desired conditions for grazing management are established in the Forest Plan and include 

providing commodities in an environmentally acceptable manner and maintaining 

rangelands in satisfactory condition. Additional Forest-wide grazing-related desired 

conditions include improving range condition over time, with specific improvements in 

the condition of riparian areas; protecting sensitive species habitat; protecting and 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

8 

improving the basic resources of vegetation, soil and water; protecting and improving 

water quality; providing healthy watershed and riparian resources that function properly; 

and providing stream bank stability, water quality, soil protection and desired plant 

communities in riparian areas. Proper allowable use guidelines and residual levels 

(remaining height of key plant species) for wetlands and riparian areas are also 

established in the Forest Plan and guide the development of site-specific desired 

condition descriptions for individual pastures on individual allotments (appendix D). 

Management area (MA)-specific desired conditions are provided in the Forest Plan and 

are summarized in table 1. The majority of the Bull Flats, Lithograph, Tepee, and Water 

Draw Allotments are within MA 5.4. The French Creek and Lower Beaver Allotments 

are primarily within MA 5.1. The Fanny Boles Research Natural Area (RNA, MA 2.2) 

occurs in a small portion of the Lower Boles Pasture of the Lower Beaver Allotment. 

This area is steep and rugged and receives only incidental use by livestock. 

Table 1. National Forest management area acreage/percent within the Range 2010 Project area 

MA Emphasis Acres 

% 

(NFS 

lands 

only) 

Livestock 

Grazing 

Allowed? 

Primary 

Allotments Desired Conditions 

5.1 Resource 

Production 

32,150 30 Yes French Creek 

Lower Beaver 

Trees managed to 

produce forest products 

while providing forage 

production 

5.4 Big Game 

Winter 

Range 

71,000 67 Yes Bull Flats 

Lithograph 

Tepee 

Water Draw 

Provide big game winter 

range while maintaining 

healthy plant 

communities; grazing is 

managed to be 

compatible with big 

game objectives 

3.7 Late Successional 

Forest 

Landscape 

2,235 2 Yes Lithograph Provide large and old 

trees with varying stand 

sizes and densities, with 

few signs of 

development 

2.2 Research 

Natural 

Areas 

315 < 1 Yes, as 

needed to 

conserve 

biological 

characteristics, 

with least 

impact on 

desired 

characteristics 

315 acres or 

1% of Lower 

Beaver 

Conserve ecological 

processes; develop 

RNA management plan 

to determine grazing 

suitability and desired 

vegetation conditions 

 Total (NFS 

Lands) 

105,700 100 

Desired conditions for Management Area 5.4 (as summarized in Appendix D and listed 

briefly above in Table 1) include providing big game winter range while maintaining 

healthy plant communities with a variety of species for food and cover. Livestock grazing 

is to be managed to be compatible with big game habitat objectives. The majority of the 

project area is within Management Area 5.4. The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

9 

for this Management Area were reviewed by the IDT (Appendix D, page 211) and used 

in the creation of adaptive management options, proposed actions, and project design 

criteria discussed in Chapter 2 and in the analysis of the environmental consequences of 

the alternatives considered in detail as discussed in Chapter 3. The Wildlife section of 

Chapter 3 evaluates big game habitat conditions and the Wildlife Report (Clark 2010a) in 

the project record provides more detail on this evaluation. A meeting with the South 

Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department was held in March 2010 to discuss this project, 

including concerns for big game habitat in the project area. 

Desired plant community selection is crucial to effective rangeland planning and was 

used for this project to determine site-specific desired conditions for vegetation types in 

the project area (table 2). This technique is supported by Region 2 of the Forest Service 

(R2 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide [USDA Forest Service 

1996c]). Species included in desired condition descriptions currently exist in the general 

area in similar environmental settings and are capable of occupying the site within a 

reasonable time period through management changes. Not all of these species are native; 

a description of existing native and non-native species is included in the next section 

under “Existing Conditions.” 

Table 2. Desired conditions for vegetative communities within the project area 

Community Type Desired Conditions

Upland 

Grasslands

Mixed native grass and forb communities provide a diverse mosaic of plant species, 

a variety of vegetative structures, and effective ground cover (not more than 5–10% 

bare ground depending on soil type) to maintain soil stability and provide wildlife 

habitat. Maintain quality of desired plant communities by managing for perennial, 

native species; non-native cheatgrass would be limited where possible. Primary 

native graminoid species may include: Hesperostipa comata (needleandthread), 

Nassella viridula (green needlegrass), Pascopyrum smithii (western wheatgrass), 

Schizachyrium scoparium (little bluestem), Carex filifolia (threadleaf sedge), and 

Koeleria macrantha (prairie junegrass). Acceptable non-native species may include 

Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass), Bromus inermis (smooth brome), and Phleum 

pratense (timothy). Forb species may include Vicia americana (American vetch), 

Achillea millefolium (common yarrow) and Trifolium spp. (clovers). 

Riparian 

Communities 

(Including Seeps 

& Springs, 

Aspen, and 

White Spruce 

Alluvial 

Communities)

Maintain riparian plant communities that provide overhanging vegetation and 

effective ground cover (not more than 5% bare ground within the riparian area) to 

help trap sediment and dissipate energy during peak flows, protect soils from 

erosion processes, maintain stream bank stability, and provide wildlife habitat. Plant 

species include Carex spp. (sedges), Juncus spp. and Scirpus spp. (rushes), and 

desirable riparian grass species [ex: Glyceria spp. (mannagrass), and 

Calamagrostis canadensis (bluejoint reedgrass)]. Some riparian communities may 

include Salix spp. (willows), in particular Salix bebbiana (Bebb’s willow), and Cornus 

sericea (redosier dogwood). Tree species may include Betula papyrifera (paper 

birch), Betula occidentalis (water birch), Populus tremuloides (quaking aspen), Acer 

negundo (boxelder) and Picea glauca (white spruce). Age class structure in willow 

communities should have the number of young/mature plants greater than the 

number of decadent/dead plants. New shrubs are establishing and are increasing in 

size and cover. Stream banks should be mostly stable consistent with the potential 

of the site. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

10 

Upland Forested 

Communities 

(Including 

Ponderosa pine 

and Rocky 

Mountain 

juniper) 

Maintain diverse understory of native grasses including Nassella viridula (green 

needlegrass), Hesperostipa spartea (porcupinegrass), Piptatherum micranthum

(littleseed ricegrass), Elymus trachycaulus (slender wheatgrass), Carex inops ssp.

heliophila (sun sedge), little bluestem and prairie junegrass. Maintain effective 

ground cover (not more than 10% bare ground) to maintain soil stability and provide 

wildlife habitat. Acceptable non-native species may include Kentucky bluegrass, 

smooth brome, and timothy. Forb species may include American vetch, common 

yarrow, and Dalea spp. (purple and/or white prairie clovers). Shrub species may 

include Juniperus communis (common juniper), Symphoricarpos spp. (snowberry), 

Ribes spp. (currant and gooseberries), and Rhus trilobata (skunkbush sumac). 

Mountain 

Mahogany 

Cercocarpus montanus (mountain mahogany) is strongly dominant, with a relatively 

sparse herbaceous stratum. Maintain a minimum of 10 percent of the site in cover 

(mature and over mature shrubs) with an understory of native grasses, forbs and 

short shrubs. Grasses include Bouteloua curtipendula (sideoats grama), Aristida 

purpurea (perennial threeawn), and Oryzopsis hymenoides (Indian ricegrass). 

Forbs and short shrubs include Hedeoma drummondii (Drummond’s false 

pennyroyal), Chrysopsis villosa (hairy goldaster), skunkbush sumac and Gutierrezia 

sarothrae (broom snakeweed). 

Existing Conditions 

Native and Non-Native Species 

Native grasses and forbs are a major component of the understory across the project area 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2009). However, many areas support non-native, 

introduced perennial grasses [e.g., Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), smooth brome 

(Bromus inermis), and timothy (Phleum pratense)]. Much of the primary grazing area in 

the Black Hills has been converted to non-native species through historic management 

practices. For example, numerous meadows were planted with timothy and/or smooth 

brome and managed as hay grounds (Graves 1899; MacIntosh 1928). These species have 

naturalized and spread to adjacent areas (Larson and Johnson 1999). It is not feasible for 

these areas to return to a “natural” state without major effort and expense. While not as 

desirable for wildlife habitat and rangeland health on public lands as native species, nonnative grasses do provide some benefits (SAIC 2003). For example, both timothy and 

Kentucky bluegrass have a palatability rating of “good” for elk, mule deer, and whitetailed deer in Wyoming (Esser 1993 and Uchytil 1993). Smooth brome has a resource 

value rating of “high” for elk and “moderate” for mule deer preference as well as “high” 

for watershed protection (USDA Forest Service 1996b). These ratings are based on 

wildlife and livestock forage preferences and may vary by season. 

While project objectives do not include managing for increases in these non-native 

species, reducing them through grazing management is usually not practical and unlikely 

to succeed. Grazing exclosures in place for over 40 years have nearly identical species 

composition to grazed areas outside the exclosures (USDA Forest Service 2006). Other 

options for removal include treatment with herbicide and/or ripping up the ground and 

reseeding. Herbicide treatment is expensive and could have detrimental effects on native 

grass species that do exist in these communities. Disturbing the soil has proven to 

increase noxious weeds, especially in those areas where they may already exist. 

Reseeding after spraying and ripping is highly recommended; however, this is also 

expensive and often the available seed comes from other areas and is genetically 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

11 

different. Establishing native species back into an area may take several years and 

repeated herbicide treatment for weeds. 

For these reasons, many non-native species are acceptable and would continue to be a 

component of both existing and desired conditions in the project area. 

Uplands 

Recent vegetation monitoring data show that upland rangeland conditions on all 

allotments are improving and are recovering from past heavy grazing in concentrated 

areas (due to poor distribution and season-long grazing practices of the distant past). Past 

effects are primarily seen through species composition and abundance. Some native 

warm-season grass species expected to be common in many areas are largely absent, 

having been replaced by a species complex dominated by cool-season grass species. 

Movement toward more native grass species is evident on all allotments, and rangeland 

conditions overall are considered satisfactory. Recent soil and watershed monitoring data 

show that soil stability and ecological processes are functioning properly on all six 

allotments. Calculated “similarity coefficients” to desired conditions in 2008/2009 ranged 

from 65 percent similar to 87 percent similar. A similarity coefficient is the mathematical 

coefficient generated by the comparison of existing vegetation and soil conditions to 

either potential natural community or desired plant community. Range condition is 

considered satisfactory with a similarity coefficient score of 65% or greater (USDA 

Forest Service 1996b). Desired species compositions are not necessarily climax 

conditions. If desired conditions are attained then the site can be re-evaluated and desired 

conditions adjusted. Desired conditions of vegetation and physical resources on the acres 

having capability to support livestock grazing are conditions that are at least 65 percent 

similar to those that could occur naturally within various seral stages of development on a 

particular site (USDA Forest Service 1996b). 

Riparian Areas (Land Along Streams, Springs, Meadows, and Wetlands) 

Some form of riparian area is present on all allotments. The Bull Flats, Lithograph, 

Tepee, and Water Draw Allotments contain small, isolated riparian areas primarily 

associated with springs, or small sections of intermittent or perennial streams. The Lower 

Beaver Allotment has some perennial water, several intermittent streams and springs with 

limited riparian areas. The French Creek Allotment contains perennial water and the most 

riparian habitat of the other allotments, including riparian areas along French Creek, 

Crow Creek, and Ruby Creek. 

Recent riparian monitoring data for the Bull Flats, French Creek, and Water Draw 

Allotments show that many riparian areas are meeting their desired conditions, although 

one site along French Creek in the French Creek Allotment is not. Several other riparian 

areas of French Creek show bank alteration, unstable banks, and less than desired hydric 

communities, among other concerns. In addition, Lower Beaver, Tepee, and Lithograph 

Allotments have spring sites and other water sources that show signs of heavy livestock 

use. On the Water Draw Allotment that currently has no livestock grazing, wildlife use is 

evident at spring sites and other water sources. Therefore, while movement toward 

desired riparian conditions is evident in some areas, continued improvements in grazing 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

12 

management are needed to address site-specific riparian-related concerns where desired 

conditions and Forest Plan standards and guidelines are not being met. 

Summary 

Site-specific existing and desired condition descriptions have been developed for 

benchmark sites and key monitoring areas in both uplands and riparian areas on all 

allotments, and include, among other factors, plant species composition and amount of 

bare soil. These site-specific benchmark and key area existing and desired conditions are 

tiered to the descriptions above and are included in chapter 2 for each allotment (see table 

5); they are used to describe the need for action in particular pastures/units for each 

allotment. 

Based on a comparison of existing and desired conditions for all six allotments, the 

following needs were identified: 

 Improve livestock management so that it is consistent with the Forest Plan. 

 Improve bank stability and increase riparian vegetation diversity and abundance 

in specific areas so spring and stream health, wildlife habitat, and riparian 

ecosystem conditions are moving toward desired conditions. 

 Improve administration of the French Creek Allotment and minimize conflicts 

with private landowners, where feasible and practical. 

Proposed Action _________________________________ 

The Black Hills National Forest proposes to continue to authorize grazing by domestic 

livestock, with some modifications, on the Bull Flats, French Creek, Lithograph, Lower 

Beaver, Tepee, and Water Draw Allotments administered by the Hell Canyon Ranger 

District. The proposed action is designed to maintain or improve resource conditions in 

rangeland health, vegetation, and watershed conditions relative to livestock grazing. 

Some grazing practices would be changed to resolve grazing-related resource issues. The 

proposed action also provides for alternate adaptive management actions to be taken if 

resource conditions do not move toward the desired conditions in an acceptable 

timeframe. 

A maximum of 6,455 animal months (AMs; calculated as one cow/calf pair or one bull 

for 30 days) or equivalent would be authorized on a total of 105,900 acres. Maximum 

allowable forage utilization would range from 40 to 50 percent depending on the 

vegetation type and the current range conditions. Seasons of use are determined for each 

allotment and are described in chapter 2, alternative 3, for each allotment; these can vary 

by allotment depending on site-specific rainfall patterns, range readiness, allotment 

permitted numbers and utilization levels, among other factors. An overall season of use is 

identified for each allotment and/or pasture, but can vary annually depending on 

conditions for that year. The following improvements would be implemented: 

 1 to 1.5 miles of new fence built to split pastures and 0.5 miles of drift fence 

converted to permanent fence; 

 8 miles of new pipeline to improve water availability and distribution; 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

13 

 16 additional stock tanks to improve livestock distribution; 

 4 stock tanks removed or relocated to address resource concerns; and 

 14 springs, ponds, riparian areas or cultural resource sites protected (this total 

includes new fences or expansion of existing fences). 

A map of each allotment is included in appendix A. 

The proposal includes an adaptive management approach to livestock management based 

on monitoring resource conditions. The proposal includes a monitoring plan for each 

allotment designed to focus on specific areas with livestock-related resource problems 

(see appendix B). If monitoring results indicate that resource problems persist, adaptive 

management options are identified that would be implemented to affect improvement in 

resource conditions (see table 5). Adaptive management would be implemented using 

regional guidance (Quimby 2007). As stated in Quimby (2007), practical adaptive 

management is an excellent tool to help an interdisciplinary team, working closely with 

their authorized officer and within the NEPA process, to make best use of evolving 

science and monitoring information over time by providing mechanisms for feedback and 

adjustment. This approach facilitates the application of constantly improving 

management rather than focusing on rigid processes that can actually inhibit 

improvement of resource conditions. 

Decision Framework ______________________________ 

After reviewing the proposed action and all alternatives and the environmental analysis, 

and after considering additional public comments, the responsible official will reach a 

decision that is in accordance with the purpose of and need for this project. The decision 

will include, but would not be limited to: 

 Whether or not to authorize livestock grazing on all or some of the allotments 

 If the decision is made to authorize livestock grazing: 

o What will be the acceptable range of kind, class, number, season of use, and 

adaptive management practices? 

o What livestock grazing system and management practices will be 

implemented? 

o What measures will be taken to improve resource conditions? 

o What monitoring will be used to help make adaptive changes over time? 

Management on each allotment would be implemented through an allotment-specific 

allotment management plan prepared based on the alternative selected in the decision. 

The allotment management plan is the implementation document by which the Forest 

Service communicates to the permittee and others the management objectives and 

planned actions to accomplish those objectives. The allotments currently under permit in 

the project area are being operated under old allotment management plans; these would 

be revised based on the decision made. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

14 

A decision will not be made until a 30-day public review and comment period for this EA 

is completed. After the 30-day review period, one or more separate decision notices 

would be issued after an analysis of all comments is completed. A 45-day appeal period 

may begin after issuance of the decision notice(s), if necessary. 

Public Involvement _______________________________ 

Scoping 

This proposal was listed in the Black Hills National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions 

in October 2009. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for 

comment during scoping from late-September through late-October 2009. The letter was 

directly mailed to 52 individuals, groups, and agencies, and to 31 tribal governments, and 

was posted on the Black Hills National Forest website. A news release was also issued 

and appeared in the Rapid City Journal on October 2, 2009. 

Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office is complete. A letter concurring 

with our Section 106 (under the National Historic Preservation Act) finding of no adverse 

effect was received on February 2, 2010, as discussed in more detail in the Cultural 

Resources section of Chapter 3. 

A coordination meeting with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks and 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department was held on March 19, 2010 to discuss this 

project and big game management objectives. 

Information was exchanged with Jewel Cave National Monument regarding concerns 

related to Stockade Spring and its relationship to cave resources during March – May 

2010. Stockade Spring, on the Water Draw Allotment, is proposed for fencing prior to the 

initiation of grazing under Alternative 3, with provisions for modifying the size of the 

exclosure, as described in more detail in Chapter 2, addressing this concern. 

Eleven responses to scoping were received via letter, fax, and email. Scoping results were 

used to confirm issues analyzed in this document and identify a reasonable range of 

project alternatives. Scoping results are summarized in Appendix C. 

EA Distribution 

On June 23, 2010, a legal notice was published in the Rapid City Journal notifying the 

public of their opportunity to comment on the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental 

Assessment (June 2010 EA). A notification was also published in the Custer County 

Chronicle on June 23, 2010 and the News Letter Journal on June 24, 2010. Copies of the 

June 2010 EA were mailed to 29 individuals, groups and state and local agencies who 

expressed interest in the project and to 32 tribal representatives. The EA was also posted 

on the project website. The comment period concluded on July 23, 2010. 

Comments were received from 6 individuals, agencies and groups. Appendix F 

summarizes the comments received and the Forest Service response to those comments. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

15 

Issues __________________________________________ 

Scoping is used to identify issues that relate to effects of the proposed action. Issues may 

come from the public, Forest Service, or from another agency. An issue is a dispute or 

debate about effects on the physical, biological, social, or economic resource as a result 

of implementing the proposed action. The Forest Service separated the issues into three 

groups: key issues, non-key issues, and relevant resources used for tracking. 

Key issues are resource impacts directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposed action. These issues create the need to develop mitigation measures or 

alternatives. Key issues may be related to existing conditions or to implementation of 

alternatives. Key issues can drive creation of alternative ways to implement the proposal 

while still meeting the purpose and need for the project, or can be addressed through 

development of project design features or mitigation measures to the proposed action. 

After reviewing comments and concerns raised during the scoping period, the ID team 

(interdisciplinary team) identified two key issues that can be addressed either through 

creation of an alternative or through development of project-specific design features. 

Non-key issues are those that are: (1) outside the scope of the project; (2) already decided 

by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to the 

decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual 

evidence. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this 

delineation in sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which 

are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (sec. 

1506.3)...” The comments provided during scoping and how they were categorized is 

included in appendix C. 

Relevant resources used for tracking are those resource concerns that are not considered 

significant (key), but are necessary to understand the full extent of the alternatives. 

Relevant resources used for tracking provide additional information for the analysis, but 

do not drive formulation of alternatives. Project design criteria have been developed for 

each alternative to address concerns for these relevant resources, as shown in chapter 2. 

Indicators have been developed for each of these to measure adverse and beneficial 

impacts and to compare and contrast alternatives. Relevant resources are discussed fully 

in chapter 3 of this EA, and include Soil and Water Quality, Range Resources, Botany, 

Wildlife, Fisheries, Cultural Resources, Socioeconomics, and Climate Change. 

The two key issues identified were (1) Riparian Area Health and (2) Range 

Improvements and Cost. 

Riparian Area Health. Those that commented felt that due to the limited nature of 

riparian areas in the southern Black Hills, more should be done to address and improve 

conditions. Those that commented mentioned Forest Plan direction for protection and 

management of these areas and ensuring a proactive approach. Riparian health and 

improved protection and management of riparian areas is part of the purpose and need for 

this project and is addressed by the proposed action. Riparian health is also addressed by 

the no-action (no grazing) alternative. Project design features applicable to all action 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

16 

alternatives have been developed to ensure protection and enhancement of riparian areas 

in the project area. 

Measurement Indicators: The measurement indicators for this issue include miles of 

improved stream and riparian health and number of improved areas of concern. 

Measurement indicators for monitoring include stubble height on key species within the 

greenline and streambank alteration (short-term monitoring) and results of multiple 

indicator method (MIM) monitoring for long-term monitoring. 

Range Improvements and Cost: Those that commented questioned the expenditure of 

funds on lengthy pipelines and other improvements when less costly methods might be 

used. Some questioned how expenditures are weighed against other factors such as 

natural resource stewardship and social aspects. Several alternatives were considered (see 

chapter 2) that would potentially reduce cost of improvements and address this issue, but 

would not necessarily meet the purpose and need for action. Livestock grazing and 

economics are included in chapter 3 with a comparison of costs by alternative. 

Measurement Indicators: The measurement indicators for this issue include total number 

of range improvements and cost. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

17 

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes alternatives considered for the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project. 

It describes each alternative considered in detail (that are then discussed in Chapter 3), as 

well as those that were initially considered, but eliminated from detailed study. This 

chapter also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining differences 

between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the 

decision maker and public. Appendix A includes maps of proposed actions for each 

allotment. Table 7 summarizes how the alternatives considered in detail would address 

project objectives, and table 8 at the end of this chapter summarizes the environmental 

consequences of implementing alternatives considered in detail. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail ___________________ 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, livestock would no longer be authorized within the 

project area and each allotment would be vacated. Existing permits would be phased out 

after giving permittees notice as provided for in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 

2209.13, chapter 10, section 16.13, R2 Interim Directive of 1/20/2004 which says, “...the 

authorized officer shall provide one year’s written notice before the modification takes 

effect, except in emergency situation.” Improvements such as fences, gates, and pipelines 

would be removed as time and funding allow. Improvements such as stock tanks, spring 

developments, and other water features used by wildlife would not be removed. This 

alternative provides an environmental baseline for evaluation of the action alternatives. 

Alternative 2 – Current Management 

Livestock grazing would continue as prescribed in current allotment management plans 

(AMPs) or annual operating instructions (AOIs) as implemented over the last 3 to 5 

years. Current management is described below for each allotment. The Water Draw 

Allotment, which has an AMP but currently has no permit, would continue to be 

managed as a vacant allotment. 

While current management has changed over time to better address certain situations and 

known problems, there are areas where this management has been unsuccessful in 

meeting or moving toward desired conditions from the Forest Plan. Total animal months 

would remain as currently permitted. Current grazing management systems for all 

allotments would continue. Existing improvements and those currently approved would 

be maintained as assigned in term grazing permits and would be reconstructed as 

necessary. New improvements not currently authorized in an existing AMP would not be 

developed. Current on-the-ground management of all six allotments would continue 

under alternative 2 and adaptive management would not be used to address changing 

conditions. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

18 

Bull Flats Allotment 

A total of 83 cows with calves are currently permitted to graze from June 1 to October 15 

each year on the Bull Flats Allotment. This would continue under alternative 2. The 

allotment would be managed as a four-pasture deferred-rotation-grazing system, as 

shown in table 3. The term grazing permit is issued to one permittee. 

This allotment currently has the following range improvements: 2 spring developments 

(Lindstrom and Castle Springs); 2 vertical wells (Lightning Well and Y-4); 19 ponds; 10 

tanks; 34 miles of fence; and 4 miles of pipeline. 

French Creek Allotment 

A total of 182 cows with calves are currently permitted to graze from June 1 to 

September 30 each year. This would continue under alternative 2. The allotment would 

be managed as a three-pasture deferred-rotation-grazing system, as shown in table 3. 

Term grazing permits are issued to three permittees. 

The French Creek Allotment currently has the following range improvements: 11 spring 

developments; 9 ponds; 7 tanks; and 12 miles of fence. 

Lithograph Allotment 

A total of 271 cows with calves are permitted to graze from June 1 to October 31 each 

year. This would continue under alternative 2. The allotment would be managed as a 

three-pasture deferred-rotation-grazing system, as shown in table 3. Term grazing permits 

are issued to two permittees. 

The Lithograph Allotment currently has the following range improvements: 5 spring 

developments; 3 vertical wells; 26 ponds/reservoirs; 20 tanks; and 25 miles of fence. 

Lower Beaver Allotment 

A total of 580 cows with calves are permitted to graze on the Lower Beaver Allotment. 

This would continue under alternative 2. Term grazing permits would be issued to six 

permittees. The allotment has eight pastures, as shown in table 3. Two of these pastures 

(Thompson Canyon and Kennedy Canyon) are grazed separate from the others. 

Thompson Canyon is a small pasture across the stateline in Wyoming, and Kennedy 

Canyon is another small pasture, primarily on private land, at the extreme southwest end 

of the Lower Boles Pasture (figure 1 and appendix A). The other six pastures are grazed 

in three pairs (Lower Boles and Roby, Summit Ridge and Moon, Wilson Place and Buck 

Springs) as two-pasture deferred-rotation systems. Livestock are permitted in the 

Kennedy Canyon Pasture from April 1 to May 31; in the Thompson Canyon pasture from 

May 1 to June 1, and in the other six pastures from June 11 to September 30 each year. 

The Lower Beaver Allotment currently has the following range improvements: 32 spring 

developments; 71 ponds/reservoirs; 23 tanks; 3 storage tanks; 24 miles of fence; and 5 

miles of pipeline. 

Tepee Allotment 

A total of 375 cows with calves are permitted to graze from June 1 to October 31 each 

year (for three pastures) and 50 cows with calves are permitted to graze from May 1 to 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

19 

May 31 each year in the Hill Pasture, as shown in table 3. This would continue under 

alternative 2. The Deadhorse and Gillette Canyon pastures would be run together with 

Antelope Ridge Pasture as a two-pasture deferred-rotation-grazing system and the Hill 

Pasture is run individually. Term grazing permits are issued to four permittees. 

The Tepee Allotment currently has the following range improvements: 8 spring 

developments; 15 dugouts/reservoirs; 32 ponds/reservoirs; 22 tanks; 3 vertical wells 

(Blacktail, Sawmill, and Tepee); 30 miles of fence; and 5.25 miles of pipeline. 

Water Draw Allotment 

Between 1991 and 2001, one term grazing permit was issued to one permittee for the 

Water Draw Allotment. The most recent term permit was for 78 cows with calves 

permitted to graze from June 1 to October 31 each year in a three-pasture deferredrotation-grazing system. However, for administrative reasons, permitted numbers for the 

Water Draw Allotment were permanently shifted to the Hell Canyon Allotment in 2001. 

The Water Draw Allotment was not grazed in 2002–2003 and 2006–present. It was used 

during portions of 2004 and 2005 to accommodate livestock from the Elk Mountain 

Allotment when that allotment was burned by wildfire. 

The Water Draw Allotment currently has the following range improvements: 6 spring 

developments; 15 ponds/reservoirs; 5 tanks; 26 miles of fence; and 0.06 miles of pipeline. 

Livestock are currently not being grazed on the Water Draw Allotment and there is no 

current permit. This would continue under alternative 2. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Table 3. Current grazing management on all allotments that would continue under alternative 2 

Units 

Grazing System Permitted Livestock Numbers Permitted Season of Use 

Animal Months (AMs)1

Allowable Utilization 

Bull Flats Allotment Brash 4-pasture 

deferred rotation 

83 cow/calf pairs/ (92 cow/calf pairs currently) 

June 1–October 15 (June 1–Sept 30 currently) 

374/ actual use currently is 368 

50%/ 40% on browse in riparian areas2

Castle Rock King Tut Michaud French Creek Allotment Pope Springs 3-pasture 

deferred rotation 

182 cows/calf pairs June 1–Sept 30 728 50%/ 

40% on browse in riparian areas2

North Pole French Creek Lithograph Allotment North 3-pasture 

deferred rotation 

271 cow/calf pairs/ (actual use is 251 cow/calf and 29 yearlings) 

June 1–Oct 31 1,364/ 

actual use is 1,263 for cow/calf and 102 for yearlings 

50% 

South East Lower Beaver Allotment Moon 2-pasture 

deferred rotation 

297 June 11–Sept 30 1,093 50% 

Summit Ridge Lower Boles 2-pasture 

deferred rotation 

80 June 11–Sept 30 295 50% 

Roby Buck Springs 2-pasture 

deferred rotation 

154 June 11–Sept 30 567 50% 

Wilson Place Thompson Canyon 38 May 1–June 1 40 50% Kennedy Canyon 11 April 1–May 31 22 50% 

Total 580 2,017 

Tepee Allotment Deadhorse 2-pasture 

deferred rotation 

375 cow/calf pairs June 1–Oct 31 1,886 50% 

Gillette Canyon Antelope Ridge Hill 33 cow/calf pairs May 1–31 34 50% 

Total 408 cow/calf pairs 1,920 

1 Animal months (AMs) are calculated as one unit being a cow/calf pair or one bull for a period of 30 days. 2In riparian areas, utilization of woody species is limited to browsing 40% of the total individual leaders produced in that year (not to be confused with 40% 

leader produced). 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

21 

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action, Using Adaptive Management 

Livestock grazing would be authorized on the Bull Flats, French Creek, Lithograph, 

Lower Beaver, Tepee, and Water Draw Allotments. Some current grazing practices, as 

described in “Alternative 2 – Current Management,” would be changed to resolve 

grazing-related resource issues. 

A maximum of 6,455 AMs or equivalent would be authorized on a total of 105,900 acres. 

Maximum allowable forage utilization would range from 40 to 55 percent depending on 

the vegetation type and the current range conditions, as described in more detail for each 

allotment and in project design criteria. 

Proposed improvements include the following: 

 1 to 1.5 miles of new fence built to split pastures and 0.5 miles of drift fence 

converted to permanent fence 

 8 miles of new pipeline to improve water availability and distribution 

 16 new stock tanks and 35 new dugouts to improve livestock distribution 

 4 stock tanks removed or relocated to address resource concerns 

 14 springs, ponds, riparian areas or cultural resource sites protected (this total 

includes new fences or expansion of existing fences) 

 2 new spring developments 

Improvements would be implemented over the 10-year permit period based on priority 

and as funds become available. A prioritized implementation schedule has been 

developed by the IDT and would be used as the basis for implementation. This schedule 

would also be used in preparation of individual Allotment Management Plans for each 

allotment in the project area. Maps of each allotment showing proposed improvements 

are provided in appendix A. 

Monitoring would occur over time on each allotment. Monitoring results would be used 

by the ID team and the District Ranger to determine if adjustments would be needed to 

ensure adequate progress is being made toward desired conditions. Monitoring is 

described in more detail later in this section; a monitoring plan for each allotment is 

included in appendix B. 

Alternative 3 (proposed action) is based on the principle of applying adaptive 

management. A proposed course of action was selected as a starting point believed to 

best meet or move toward the desired condition. Some practices alone may not meet the 

desired condition, but in combination with other practices, desired conditions may be met 

or moved toward being met. For example, a two-unit deferred-grazing system alone may 

not provide the anticipated result, but when coupled with light grazing intensity and 

construction of additional water developments, desired conditions may be met. Table 4 

lists potential adaptive management options that may be used to address a site-specific 

need during the course of project implementation. All adaptive management options with 

the potential to be used are within the scope of effects described in this document. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

22 

Table 4. Possible adaptive management options for use with alternative 3 (proposed action) 

Possible Grazing Management Actions 

A Implement different grazing system, and/or change number of pastures (e.g. deferred rotation in 2, 3, 

4, or more pastures, rest-rotation, short-duration spring grazing, short-duration temporary pastures or 

cells to concentrate livestock use for control of non-native species) to meet resource objectives on 

the allotment (may include use of permittees waived private land already associated with the use of a 

private land permit or on-off permit that occurs within the allotment rotation). 

B Use water to control livestock distribution (turn water on or off at existing spring developments). 

C Haul water to temporary tanks to influence livestock distribution and obtain use in areas that normally 

receive light to no use (location of tanks is moved around allotment). 

D Construct new permanent water development to influence livestock distribution (dugouts/ponds, 

wells, pipeline, tanks, pump, solar). 

E Remove existing water development to influence livestock distribution. 

F Construct fence to exclude livestock from areas of concern (springs, seeps, riparian, R2 sensitive 

species sites, species of local concern, hardwoods, heritage site, or other). 

G Implement specific dates of use or nonuse to protect areas of concern. 

H Construct permanent fence to influence livestock distribution. 

I Use temporary electric fence for short-term control of livestock distribution. 

J Remove (permanent or temporary) fence to influence livestock distribution. 

K Use of range rider (herding) to control livestock movement (distribution). 

L Change class of animal (i.e., cow/calf to yearling)—do not exceed permitted AMs (stocking rate). 

M Rest from livestock grazing for one or more seasons. 

N Change the permitted livestock number, permitted animal months (AMs) and/or season until 

demonstrated progress towards desired future condition is made (as evidenced by monitoring and 

inventory data). 

O Do not allow livestock grazing. 

P Change allotment or pasture boundaries. 

Q Use salt or other supplements to draw livestock toward or away from specific areas. 

R Construct brush barriers to protect sensitive resource area. 

S Move existing water developments, if feasible, away from streams and springs. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Table 5. Alternative 3 proposed actions by allotment 

Benchmark (BM) or Area of Concern (AC) Desired Condition1 Existing Condition Need for Action Proposed ActioBull Flats Allotment BMBrash Pasture: upland site (T4S, R3E, NENW Sec 4) 

Maintain ecological processes; increase western wheatgrass, sedges, and other native perennials; bare ground <5% 

87% similarity coefficient; western wheatgrass, sedges, and other native perennials present; bare ground <5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

BMCastle Rock: upland site (T4S, R3E SWNW, Sec 7) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass and increase other perennial grasses and sedges; bare ground <5% 

70% similarity coefficient; smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and other perennial graminoids; bare ground <5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

ACCastle Rock: North Lightning Creek riparian site (T4S, R3E, NENE Sec 11) 

Maintain ecological processes; no increase in area of hummocking, maintain perennial native vegetation; bare ground <5% 

Maintaining ecological processes, hummocking, maintaining perennial native vegetation, bare ground <5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

BM Heinrich Unit: upland site (T4S, R3E, SESE Sec 8) 

Maintain ecological processes; bare ground <5% 

87% similarity coefficient; western wheatgrass, sedges and other native perennials present; bare ground <5%; this unit is no longer grazed due to intermingled private land 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

BM Michaud Unit: upland site (T4S, R3E, SESW Sec 3) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass, increase other perennial grasses and shrubs; bare ground <5% 

81% similarity coefficient; western wheatgrass, sedges and other native perennials present; bare ground <5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

BM King Tut Unit: upland site (T4S, R3E, SWSE Sec 16) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass; increase other perennial grasses and shrubs; bare ground <5% 

78% similarity coefficient; western wheatgrass, sedges and other native perennials present, bare ground <5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

24 

Benchmark (BM) or Area of Concern (AC) Desired Condition1 Existing Condition Need for Action Proposed ActioBM King Tut Unit: South Lightning Creek riparian site (T4S, R3E, NE Sec 23) 

Maintain ecological processes; increase riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation; bare ground <5% 

100% young riparian shrubs and 69% hydric vegetation 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

French Creek Allotment BMFrench Creek Unit: upland site (T3S, R3E, SESW Sec 13) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and undesirable forbs; increase other perennial grasses and sedges; bare ground <5% 

74% similarity coefficient; western wheatgrass, sedges and other native perennials present; bare ground <5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change at this particular site, but change proposed for allotment as a whole 

Limited season in French Creek Unfor first 2 years wrange rider to address riparian concerns; see be

AC, BMFrench Creek Unit: riparian site French Creek (T3S, R3E, Sec 13, 23, 24; T3S, R4E, Sec 19) 

Less than or equal to 26% bank alteration, 74% stable banks; increase riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation 

48% bank alteration, 53% stable banks, 0% mature willows, 74% hydric vegetation 

Improve banks, riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation 

Limited season ouse for first 2 yeawith range rider taddress riparian concerns, as described in the narrative descriptremove water gaimprove willow exclosure and puwater to upland sand south to NortPole unit 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Benchmark (BM) or Area of Concern (AC) Desired Condition1 Existing Condition Need for Action Proposed ActioBMNorth Pole Unit: upland site (T3S, R3E, SWNW Sec 26) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and undesirable forbs; increase other perennial grasses and sedges; bare ground <5% 

68% similarity coefficient; sedges, Kentucky bluegrass and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground <5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change at this particular site, but change proposed for allotment as a whole 

Reduce permitted livestock by 50 h(132 cows/calves would be permitte

ACNorth Pole Unit: riparian site (T3S, R3E, Sec 23, 35) 

Maintain ecological processes; increase riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation; bare ground <5% 

Lack of riparian shrubs, hummocking, and channel widening 

Livestock use is impacting riparian area 

Build buck and pexclosure fence around creek, eaand west of road 287; Create NortPole Spring #2 exclosure; South Fork French Creeclean out existing dam and fence in willows; construcroadside dugouts and clean out existing; relocate Wabash Spring tprotect seep area Danby Spring witoption to develop tank outside exclosure 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

26 

Benchmark (BM) or Area of Concern (AC) Desired Condition1 Existing Condition Need for Action Proposed ActioACNorth Pole Unit and Pope Springs Unit: riparian site, McKenna Spring (T3S, R4E, SENW Sec 30) 

Maintain ecological processes; increase riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation; bare ground <5% 

Water tank in channel and hummocks in riparian area 

Livestock use is impacting riparian area 

Maintain McKennSpring until an alternate water source can be developed; optionwould include putting a float on tanks and runninan overflow line down into the draif this or other adaptive management options do not resolve the issueMcKenna Spring would be removefrom use within 5years 

BM, AC Pope Springs Unit: upland site (T3S, R4E, SW Sec 16; T4S, R4E, Sec 6) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and undesirable forbs; increase other perennial grasses and sedges; bare ground <5% 

76% similarity coefficient; Kentucky bluegrass and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground <5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for broad changes 

Convert 0.5 mile drift fence in sect6 to permanent fence 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Benchmark (BM) or Area of Concern (AC) Desired Condition1 Existing Condition Need for Action Proposed ActioACPope Springs Unit: riparian site, French Creek (T3S, R4E, N1⁄2NW 1⁄4 Sec 29; SWSW Sec 20) 

Increase riparian shrubs and native species, stable stream banks 

Lack of riparian shrubs, hummocking, and channel widening 

Livestock use is impacting riparian area 

Develop Ballwooseep; clean out Adugout; 1 to 1.5 miles new fence creating North anSouth Pope Sprinpastures along 0mile stretch of French Creek in NWNW Sec 29, 2and pump water upland locations north and south ofence; construct roadside dugouts and clean out existing 

Lithograph Allotment BMNorth Unit: upland site (T4S, R2E, SESW Sec 10) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

65% similarity coefficient; western wheatgrass, blue grama, and other native perennials present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

ACSouth Unit: riparian site (T4S, R1E SENW Sec 23) 

Maintain ecological processes and perennial native vegetation; bare ground <5% 

Unprotected riparian area Livestock use is 

impacting riparian area 

Pipe water downto tank in meado

BMSouth Unit: upland site (T4S, R2E, NESW Sec 30) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

68% similarity coefficient; western wheatgrass, blue grama, and other native perennials present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

28 

Benchmark (BM) or Area of Concern (AC) Desired Condition1 Existing Condition Need for Action Proposed ActioBMEast Unit: upland site (T4S, R2E, SESW Sec 28) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

67% similarity coefficient; western wheatgrass, blue grama, and other native perennials present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

AC Heritage Site 02030304704- Historic 

Maintain integrity and condition of historic structure and associated features 

Cattle rubbing up against historic cabin; one wall of cabin collapsed; trails across site 

Cattle grazing in area has damaged site; continued grazing without mitigation is likely to destroy the resource 

Protect cabin with exclosure fence; discourage cattle congregation by spreading slash 

Lower Beaver Allotment BMBuck Springs Unit: upland site (T3S, R1E, SWNE Sec 3) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease sedges and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs; bare ground less than 5% 

72% similarity coefficient; sedges, prairie junegrass, needle-and-thread grass, and other native perennials present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

BMLower Boles Unit:upland site (T3S, R1E, NESE Sec 18) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses, forbs and sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

72% similarity coefficient; western wheatgrass, blue grama and other graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

BMMoon Unit: upland site (T1S, R1E, SWNE Sec 21) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and timothy and increase other perennial grasses and sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

69% similarity coefficient; Kentucky bluegrass and perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

BMRoby Unit: upland site (T2S, R1E, SESE Sec 30) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease crested wheatgrass and increase other perennial grasses, forbs and sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

70% similarity coefficient; crested wheatgrass, green needlegrass other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Benchmark (BM) or Area of Concern (AC) Desired Condition1 Existing Condition Need for Action Proposed ActioBMSummit Ridge Unit: upland site (T2S, R1E, NWSE Sec 20) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease sedges and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs; bare ground less than 5% 

68% similarity coefficient; sedges, green needlegrass and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

BMWilson Place Unit: upland site (T2S, R2E, SESW Sec 18) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

74% similarity coefficient; Kentucky bluegrass, sedges, and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; need for improved livestock distribution in some areas; no need for change in others 

Install GooseberrSpring tank and pipeline 

AC Lower Boles and Roby Heritage Site 39CU1119- Prehistoric 

Maintain prehistoric features; maintain integrity of subsurface cultural deposits 

Stock dam constructed on site sometime after 1991 without consideration to heritage resources; total destruction of some site features; heavy trails and high deflation 

Cattle grazing is having an adverse impact to site; stock dam construction destroyed parts of site and contributes to continued destruction; area too heavily used 

Backfill stock dam 

ACMoon Heritage Site 39PN0340- Historic and Prehistoric 

Maintain prehistoric and historic features; maintain integrity of subsurface cultural deposits 

Heavy trails and deflation due to wallowing; adverse only along road leading through site 

Cattle grazing is having an adverse impact to site 

Spread slash to divert cattle from sensitive area anannually monitor 

Tepee Allotment BMGillette Canyon Unit: upland site #1 (T4S, R2E, SENW Sec 4) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease western wheatgrass, blue grama, and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses forbs and sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

70% similarity coefficient; western wheatgrass, sedges, and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

30 

Benchmark (BM) or Area of Concern (AC) Desired Condition1 Existing Condition Need for Action Proposed ActioBMGillette Canyon upland site #2 (T3S, R1E, SWNE Sec 36) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses forbs and shrubs; bare ground less than 5% 

76% similarity coefficient; western wheatgrass, sedges, and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

ACGillette Canyon Unit: riparian site (T3S, R2E, NWSE Sec 27) 

Maintain ecological processes and native perennial vegetation; bare ground <5% 

Blacktail Spring #1–unprotected riparian area 

Livestock use is impacting riparian area 

Develop 2 tanks Hay Draw and 1 tank at Sawmill 

BMDeadhorse Flats Unit: upland site (T3S, R1E, NESE Sec 12) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses forbs and shrubs; bare ground less than 5% 

74% similarity coefficient; blue 

grama, prairie junegrass and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

Maintain current management 

ACDeadhorse Flats Unit: riparian site Lower Deadhorse Springs (T3S, R2E, SWSW Sec 18) 

Maintain ecological processes and native perennial vegetation, bare ground <5% 

Unprotected riparian area Livestock use is 

impacting riparian area 

Move tank and expand exclosure 

BMAntelope Ridge Unit: upland site (T3S, R2E, NWSW Sec 23) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

72% similarity coefficient; sedges, prairie junegrass and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; need for improved livestock distribution in some areas; no need for change in others 

Develop BlacktaiSpring #2 

ACHeritage Site 39CU0774- Prehistoric 

Maintain prehistoric features; Maintain integrity of subsurface cultural deposit 

Deflation around pond; many cattle trails and congregation across site 

Cattle grazing has an adverse impact to site 

Relocate stock ta
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Benchmark (BM) or Area of Concern (AC) Desired Condition1 Existing Condition Need for Action Proposed ActioACHeritage Site 39CU0846- Prehistoric 

Maintain prehistoric features; Maintain integrity of subsurface cultural deposit 

Stock tank on site causing congregation; deflation around stock tank; multiple cattle trails 

Cattle grazing is damaging the integrity of the cultural deposits 

Construct buck arail fence around sensitive areas 

Water Draw Allotment BMNorth Unit: upland site #1 (T4S, R3E, SESE Sec 6) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses forbs, shrubs and sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

74% similarity coefficient; blue 

grama, prairie junegrass and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; additional water is needed to ensure rest rotation pasture system is successful 

Implement 3-pasrest-rotation-grazsystem with 252 permitted AMS fothe allotment; develop 6 new taand pipeline 

BMNorth Unit: upland site #2 (T4S, R3E, SWSW Sec 18) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease needle-and-thread grass and increase other perennial grasses, sedges, shrubs and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

76% similarity coefficient; little bluestem, needleand thread and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

See above 

BMSouth Unit: upland site (T4S, R2E, NENW Sec 26) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and increase other perennial grasses, sedges, shrubs and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

80% similarity coefficient; western wheatgrass, blue grama, and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

See above 

BMEast Unit: upland site (T4S, R3E, NWSW Sec 29) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses, sedges, shrubs and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

74% similarity coefficient; blue 

grama, prairie junegrass and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

See above 

BMEast Unit: upland site outside exclosure (T4S, R3E, SWSE Sec 20) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and increase other perennial grasses, sedges, shrubs and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

87% similarity coefficient; Kentucky bluegrass and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

See above 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

32 

Benchmark (BM) or Area of Concern (AC) Desired Condition1 Existing Condition Need for Action Proposed ActioBMEast Unit: upland site inside exclosure (T4S, R3E, SWSE Sec 20) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and increase other perennial grasses, sedges, shrubs and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

84% similarity coefficient; Kentucky bluegrass and other perennial graminoids present; bare ground less than 5% 

Moving toward/achieving desired conditions; no need for change 

See above 

AC North Heritage Site 39CU0021- Prehistoric and Historic 

Maintain historic and prehistoric features; Maintain integrity of subsurface cultural deposit 

Stock tank and spring development on site; fence around spring in disrepair; little evidence of present grazing impacts 

Spring development and stock tank on site create high potential for impacts to cultural resources 

Reconstruct fencaround spring; relocate stock tan

ACEast Heritage Site 39CU3806- Prehistoric 

Maintain prehistoric features; Maintain integrity of subsurface cultural deposit 

Fences are located running through the site; little present evidence of grazing impacts 

Fence has the potential to bottleneck the cattle through the site 

Remove wire from fence; leave the posts to minimize ground disturban

ACSouth Heritage Site 39CU1048- Prehistoric 

Maintain prehistoric features; Maintain integrity of subsurface cultural deposit 

Spring and stock tank located on site; some erosion near pond; no current impacts 

Canyon and spring produce a very high potential for impacts to cultural resources 

Construct fenced exclosures arounsensitive areas 

1 The determination for the trend in ecological processes from existing to desired conditions is made using monitoring data and professional judgment. Th

upon multiple indicators such as the abiotic characteristics, vegetation conditions, and recovery mechanisms of a site. The indicators taken into considera

how they are measured and evaluated, will vary depending on the site. Methods contained within the Interagency Technical Guides and the R2 RangelanManagement Training Guide are approved for possible use in monitoring efforts. The Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring Guide is also approved for use by p

includes monitoring plans for each allotment. Riparian shrubs and stream bank stability represent indicators that are used in MIM. For ease of understanding, the IDT lumped several metrics of MIM to

of Desired Conditions. “Riparian shrubs” is a reflection of the combination of the following MIM indicators, “Percent saplings + young”, “Percent Mature”, ““Percent Woody Use”, while “Stable stream banks” is the result of the metrics “Bank alteration” and “Percent Stable Bank”. 

2 these options are those that are most likely to be used first to address the specific need for the specific area. However, any option from Table 4 could be 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

33 

Bull Flats Allotment 

Alternative 3, Proposed Action, includes continuation of a four-pasture deferred-rotationgrazing system and current permitted numbers. For the Bull Flats Allotment, Alternative 

2 - Current Management and Alternative 3- Proposed Action are the same. 

374 AMs would be permitted and a June 1 – October 15 season of use would be 

authorized, although this would be shortened annually as needed, not to exceed permitted 

AMs. Maximum allowable utilization would be set at 50 percent. Stubble height 

standards for key species in riparian areas would be 4 inches to 6 inches. 

Table 5 shows existing and desired conditions at benchmark monitoring areas and areas 

of concern on the Bull Flats Allotment that were used in determining that no changes to 

current management are needed at this time. Table 5 also shows what adaptive 

management options (Table 4) would be used, however, if issues arise or conditions are 

not otherwise moving toward desired conditions. 

French Creek Allotment 

Alternative 3 (proposed action) for the French Creek Allotment includes creation of a 

four-pasture deferred-rotation-grazing system (two pastures would be created from the 

existing Pope Springs Unit North Pope Springs Pasture and South Pope Springs Pasture; 

see appendix A) with a 50-head reduction in permitted numbers (50 head would be 

moved to the Water Draw Allotment) so that only 132 cows with calves (529 AMs) 

would be permitted. Livestock would be permitted to graze from June 1 to September 30 

annually, except as described below for the French Creek Unit. Maximum allowable 

utilization would be set at 50 percent. Stubble height standards for key species in riparian 

areas would be 4 inches to 6 inches. 

One term grazing permit would be issued to one permittee in the French Creek 

Allotment. A reduction in permitted numbers and administrative permits would help in 

reducing administrative challenges due in part to dispersed private land across the 

allotment. The other two permittees would be issued permits in the Water Draw 

Allotment and livestock would be moved there (discussed in more detail below). 

To address riparian concerns, several actions are proposed. Livestock use in the French 

Creek unit would be limited to a maximum of 20 days for 2 years with a turn-on date of 

June 15 (this could be less if stubble height or stream bank alteration monitoring indicates 

the need). The remaining days of the grazing season would be split between the North 

Pole, North Pope Springs, and South Pope Springs units. A range rider would keep cattle 

out of the French Creek riparian area and towards the Church Camp water development, 

when necessary. Following the 2-year period, livestock move dates would be based on 

stubble height and/or stream bank alteration monitoring results. In year three, the French 

Creek Unit would be incorporated into the four-pasture deferred-rotation system with 

North Pole, North Pope Springs, and South Pope Springs units. If monitoring indicates 

(see appendix B) by year six of implementation (or 2016 if the proposed action is 

implemented during the 2011 season) that existing conditions along French Creek are not 

moving toward desired conditions in a reasonable timeframe (based on the limited use in 

years 1 and 2 and the implementation of a four-pasture deferred rotation grazing system 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

34 

in year 3) an adaptive management option (see tables 4 and 5) would be implemented. 

The adaptive management option selected would include consideration of creating either 

a riparian exclosure or a riparian pasture along French Creek, or removing livestock 

completely from the French Creek pasture. 

Table 5 shows existing and desired conditions at benchmark monitoring areas and areas 

of concern on the French Creek Allotment that were used in determining needed changes 

to current management. Several site-specific improvements/protections are proposed as 

summarized below: 

 1 to 1.5 miles of new fence to split the Pope Springs Unit into two pastures (this 

accounts for some additional fence that may be needed near the private land 

boundary to ensure effectiveness) and 0.5 miles of drift fence converted to 

permanent fence 

 2 miles of new pipeline to improve water distribution 

 5 new stock tanks and 35 new dugouts to improve livestock distribution 

 1 tank relocated to address resource concerns 

 4 riparian area protections with fence (this total includes new fences and/or 

expansion of existing fences) 

 1 new spring development 

Table 5 also shows what adaptive management options (table 4) would be used if issues 

arise or conditions are not otherwise moving toward desired conditions. 

Lithograph Allotment 

Alternative 3 (proposed action) for the Lithograph Allotment includes continuation of the 

three-pasture deferred-rotation-grazing system and current permitted numbers, as 

described in alternative 2 (current management), but with a few minor adjustments. 

A total of 1,364 AMs would be authorized and a June 1–October 31 season of use would 

be permitted. Maximum allowable use would be set at 50 percent. Stubble height 

standards for key species in riparian areas would be 4 inches to 6 inches. 

Table 5 shows existing and desired conditions at benchmark monitoring areas and areas 

of concern on the Lithograph Allotment that were used in determining needed changes to 

current management and what adaptive management options (table 4) would be used if 

issues arise or conditions are not otherwise moving toward desired conditions. 

Several site-specific improvements/protections are proposed as summarized below: 

 0.5 miles of new pipeline to improve water distribution 

 one new stock tank to improve livestock distribution 

 two riparian area/cultural resource area protections with fence (this total includes 

new fences and/or expansion of existing fences) 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

35 

Maintenance of existing improvements would occur over time as described later in this 

chapter under “Design Criteria.” As funding becomes available for maintenance on the 

Lithograph Allotment, priority for additional resource protection would be given to Piper 

Spring and Chipmunk Spring. 

Lower Beaver Allotment 

Alternative 3 (proposed action) for the Lower Beaver Allotment includes continuation of 

the current deferred rotation grazing system and current permitted numbers, as described 

in alternative 2 (current management), but with a few minor adjustments. 

The two-pasture deferred-rotation-grazing system for six pastures and the single use 

pasture system for Thompson and Kennedy Canyon pastures would continue and 2017 

AMs would be permitted. A June 11–September 30 season of use would continue for six 

pastures, with May 1–June 1 for Thompson Canyon and April 1–May 31 for Kennedy 

Canyon. Maximum allowable use would be set at 50 percent. Stubble height standards for 

key species in riparian areas would be 4 inches to 6 inches. 

Table 5 shows existing and desired conditions at benchmark monitoring areas and areas 

of concern on the Lower Beaver Allotment used in determining needed changes to 

current management and what adaptive management options (table 4) would be used if 

issues arise or conditions are not otherwise moving toward desired conditions. 

Several site-specific improvements/protections are proposed as summarized below: 

 0.15 miles of new pipeline to improve water distribution 

 one new stock tank to improve livestock distribution 

 Backfill nonfunctional stock dam and spread slash to enhance protection of 

sensitive cultural sites 

Maintenance of existing improvements (including reconstruction of the Stateline fence) 

would occur over time as described later in this chapter under “Design Criteria.” As 

funding becomes available for maintenance on the Lower Beaver Allotment, priority for 

additional resource protection would be given to Barrel Spring, Sidehill Reservoir, and 

Moon Reservoir #2. 

Tepee Allotment 

Alternative 3 (proposed action) for the Tepee Allotment includes continuation of the 

current grazing system and current permitted numbers as described in alternative 2 

(current management), but with a few minor adjustments. 

The two-pasture deferred-rotation-grazing system and single pasture use of the Hill 

pasture would continue and 1,920 AMs would be permitted. A June 1–October 31 season 

of use would continue for three pastures, with May 1–31 season for the Hill pasture. 

Maximum allowable use would be set at 50 percent. Stubble height standards for key 

species in riparian areas would be 4 inches to 6 inches. 

Table 5 shows existing and desired conditions at benchmark monitoring areas and areas 

of concern on the Tepee Allotment used in determining needed changes to current 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

36 

management and what adaptive management options (table 4) would be used if issues 

arise or conditions are not otherwise moving toward desired conditions. 

Several site-specific improvements/protections are proposed as summarized below: 

 1.6 miles of new pipeline to improve water distribution 

 3 new stock tanks to improve livestock distribution 

 2 tanks relocated to address resource concerns 

 2 riparian area/cultural resource area protections with fence (this includes new 

fences and/or expansion of existing fences) 

 1 new spring development 

Water Draw Allotment 

Alternative 3 (proposed action) for the Water Draw Allotment includes issuing a new 

permit for a total of 50 cows with calves to two permittees that are currently using the 

French Creek Allotment. The allotment would be run in a three-pasture rest-rotation 

system. Several improvements are proposed including constructing approximately six 

new stock tanks, approximately 3.8 miles of pipeline, and maintenance and 

reconstruction of several fences and water developments that were damaged or destroyed 

by the Jasper Fire (2000) and Roger Shack Fire (2001). Spring sites with the capacity to 

be operational would be made functional before livestock are allowed on the allotment. 

This includes repairing existing or building new exclosure fences to ensure spring sources 

and/or cultural resources (e.g., Lithograph, Log Trough, Stockade, Stockade #2, A&E in 

section 13, and Water Draw) are protected. These sites would be reviewed onsite with an 

ID team (including specialists in range, wildlife, hydrology, and archeology) to determine 

if any changes to existing exclosures are needed and if so, to what extent. 

Site-specific improvements are proposed as summarized below: 

 3.8 miles of new pipeline to improve water distribution 

 6 new stock tanks to improve livestock distribution 

 1 tank relocated to address resource concerns 

 6 riparian area/cultural resource area protections with fence (this total includes 

new fences and/or expansion of existing fences) 

A total of 252 AMs would be permitted with a June 1–October 31 season of use. 

Maximum allowable use would be set at 50 to 55 percent. Stubble height standards for 

key species in riparian areas would be 4 inches to 6 inches. 

Table 5 shows existing and desired conditions at benchmark monitoring areas and areas 

of concern on the Water Draw Allotment and what adaptive management options (table 

4) would be used if issues arise or conditions are not otherwise moving toward desired 

conditions. 

Maintenance of existing improvements would occur over time as described later in this 

chapter under “Design Criteria.” 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

37 

Project Design Criteria to Ensure Environmental 

Protection ______________________________________ 

The design criteria and allowable use levels listed below include features that would be 

implemented to avoid, minimize, or eliminate adverse impacts that might result from 

implementation of alternatives 2 and 3. These design criteria are integral to, and are 

considered part of, the action alternatives; analysis of effects presented in chapter 3 is 

based on implementation of these non-discretionary features. No mitigation actions are 

required to implement the action alternatives because the analysis of effects (chapter 3) 

does not indicate the need for any additional protective measures. 

Appendix D includes a list of relevant standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan and 

Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices (USDA Forest Service 2006) that were used 

in development of the lists below. These practices were reviewed during project 

development and in the creation of the monitoring plan. Design criteria, allowable use 

levels, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and watershed conservation practices form 

the foundation for implementation of the action alternatives. 

Design Criteria 

 Acceptable type of livestock to be grazed is cattle. Acceptable classes of livestock 

are cow with/without calf, bull and yearling. 

 Use salting to influence livestock distribution patterns. Do not salt within 0.25 

mile of water sources, eligible heritage sites, or developed recreation sites, 

without prior approval. 

 Maintain existing range improvements as assigned in the term grazing permits. 

Most range improvements would be constructed by the permittee with the Forest 

Service providing most of the materials. As funding becomes available, priority 

for additional resource protection would be given to evaluating and implementing 

needed maintenance/re-design at existing spring/stream/water source 

improvements that are listed in the proposed action description for some 

allotments (previously in this chapter). Other sites where routine maintenance 

needs have been identified by the ID team are in the project file and would be 

referenced during annual permittee meetings. 

 Reconstruct/replace existing range improvements as their useful life expectancy is 

amortized or to respond to natural disasters. 

 Evaluate range readiness annually and adjust turn-on date as needed. 

 Evaluate utilization and adjust pasture move dates and move-off dates based on 

allowable use standards. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

38 

 Roads providing access to rangeland improvements would be evaluated over time 

and maintained as needed on a case-by-case basis. No immediate road 

maintenance needs were identified by the IDT at this time. 

 Locate new livestock/wildlife water sites out of hardwood communities when 

feasible. 

 Livestock would be moved by the permittee when proper use criteria for upland 

rangelands and stubble height for riparian areas are reached and continued use 

would exceed Forest Plan guidelines and standards. 

 Sensitive resource areas (e.g., cultural resource sites, sensitive plant locations and 

snail species of local concern and/or other sensitive wildlife habitat areas) would 

be identified and mapped for each allotment. Management activities that have the 

tendency to concentrate grazing pressure or livestock use in these areas (e.g., 

salting, watering, and gathering) would be avoided. 

 Prior to any work in a riparian area containing northern leopard frogs, a district 

biologist would be consulted. 

 If Black Hills redbelly snakes are observed or hibernacula found during 

implementation of any activities in the project area, a district biologist would be 

consulted. If a hibernacula/breeding site is found, a buffer may be established 

around the riparian area and the hibernacula. 

 Ground-disturbing activities such as installation of water developments, pipelines, 

fences or exclosures or certain types of road maintenance would require both 

heritage resource and sensitive species surveys and approval by a Forest Service 

archeologist, botanist, and wildlife biologist prior to construction. 

 Tribes would be notified if culturally significant artifacts or burial sites are found 

during project implementation. 

 When long-term drought situations occur, range permittees would be notified in 

writing that reductions in season or livestock numbers may be anticipated. 

 Grazing in post-wildfire situations would be evaluated by an ID team based on 

burn severity, vegetative regrowth, and management objectives. 

 Defer prescribed burn areas from livestock grazing for a portion or all of the 

following growing season to ensure regrowth of forage species. 

 Do not construct new range improvements within 0.5 mile of active goshawk 

nests from April 1 through August 15, or until the nest has failed or fledglings 

have dispersed. 

 Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budget, and flow patterns 

in wetlands to sustain their ecological function, per “404” regulations 

 Wildlife escape ramps would be added to all stock tanks where needed and would 

be maintained by the permittee. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

39 

 Sensitive species or species of local concern located after permit issuance would 

be protected based on active coordination between permittees and the Forest 

Service. 

 Any new fences constructed or any fences maintained would be designed and 

built so that they do not create unnecessary or unreasonable barriers or hazards for 

wildlife and people; recommendations from the South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish and Parks would be considered and a district biologist consulted. 

 Water would not be developed in areas where sensitive species or species of local 

concerns are found in riparian/aquatic habitat. 

Utilization Levels 

Allowable Use and Residual Levels 

Livestock and wild herbivore allowable forage use or residual levels on rangelands by 

grazing system and range condition are shown in table 6; these are from the Forest Plan 

(standard 2505): 

Table 6. Proper allowable use guidelines (percent utilization by weight each year) 

Season of Use Satisfactory Condition (%) Unsatisfactory Condition (%)

Continuous Use Spring/Summer 0–45 0–40 

Continuous Use Fall/Winter 55–60 0–55 

Deferred Rotation 0–50 0–45 

Rest Rotation 0–55 0–50 

Residual levels (or remaining height of key plant species) would be prescribed for 

riparian areas. Residual levels would be based upon specific objectives for the location 

in question and would consider season of use and range conditions. 

Utilization of willows, shrubs, woody vines or young deciduous trees (such as aspen, 

birch, and oak) in any year by livestock or wildlife would be limited to browsing 40 

percent of the total individual leaders produced in that year (not to be confused with 40 

percent use on each and every leader produced). 

Livestock would be removed from the grazing unit or allotment when further utilization 

on key areas in that year would exceed proper allowable use or prescribed residual level 

in the Forest Plan, AMP, or AOI for either grass and forbs or shrubs. 

Monitoring ______________________________________ 

Monitoring and evaluation are key elements of adaptive management. Monitoring helps 

determine how Forest Plan and NEPA decisions are being implemented, whether 

implementation is achieving the desired outcome, or whether changes in management are 

needed. Through monitoring, the Forest Service can measure whether or not desired 

conditions are being achieved in an appropriate timeframe. Through adaptive 

management, allotment management plans can remain dynamic, relevant, and useful over 

many years. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

40 

Two types of monitoring are associated with AMPs: implementation monitoring and 

effectiveness monitoring. Implementation (short-term) monitoring would measure 

whether or not Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met, while effectiveness 

(long-term) monitoring would evaluate how effective management actions are at moving 

toward or achieving the desired conditions. Budgets, personnel, and resource condition 

would determine the scope and degree of rangeland monitoring activities. A realistic 

implementation monitoring strategy would be to monitor all of the allotments using both 

Forest Service and permittee monitoring. Much of the implementation monitoring is 

actually the responsibility of the permittee. However, Forest Service range managers and 

other specialists, such as botanists, wildlife biologists, and archeologists, also monitor 

compliance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Upland and riparian monitoring 

areas would be the focus of effectiveness monitoring which is primarily the responsibility 

of Forest Service personnel. However, grazing permittees are always welcome to 

participate in effectiveness monitoring. 

All methods shown in the Interagency Technical Guides and the R2 Rangeland Analysis 

and Management Training Guide are approved for possible use in monitoring efforts. 

The Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring Guide is also approved for use by permittees. The 

following methods would generally be used. Appendix B includes monitoring plans for 

each allotment. 

Rangeland Implementation (Short-term) Monitoring 

Short-term range monitoring techniques would vary depending on the resources being 

monitored. Monitoring would take place at key areas of livestock use on each allotment. 

All agency monitoring methods can be used in monitoring efforts. The following 

monitoring techniques would generally be used alone, but sometimes in combination: 

Range Readiness: Indicators used to determine rangeland readiness are soils and 

vegetation conditions. Rangelands are generally ready for grazing when soils have 

become firm after winter and spring precipitation, and when plants have reached the 

defined stage of growth, at which time grazing may begin under the specific management 

plan without long-lasting damage. 

Ocular Utilization Estimate: Ocular estimates provide a visual estimate of utilization of 

riparian and upland herbaceous or browse species. Estimates are based on a description 

representing a broad range (class) of utilization rather than a precise amount (USDA 

Forest Service 1996b). 

Stubble Height: Adequate stubble height on streamside areas is needed at the end of the 

grazing period or at the end of the grazing season for maintenance of plant vigor and 

stream bank protection and to aid in holding sediments for rebuilding degraded stream 

banks. Measurements of the residual amount of Carex spp. are taken along the greenline. 

Specifically, 3 to 4 inches of residual Carex spp. are required for spring pastures and 4 to 

6 inches for summer and fall pastures (USDA Forest Service 1996b). 

Photographs and Photo-points: Photographs are extremely useful in documenting 

change on the landscape. Photos should capture the essence of the plot, point, or transect, 

including important characteristics and features of the site. Photos need to include enough 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

41 

of the horizon-line to allow the photographer to easily repeat the photograph from the 

same angle at a different time. 

Robel Pole: Monitoring with the modified Robel pole method consists of taking visual 

height obstruction readings to provide a statistically reliable estimate of herbage left 

ungrazed (standing biomass/crop) and vegetation structure. The relationship between the 

visual obstruction readings and standing herbage has been done for the Central Black 

Hills of South Dakota (Uresk and Benson 2007). 

Rangeland Effectiveness (Long-term) Monitoring 

The most important role of monitoring is to determine whether management is successful 

at maintaining or moving rangeland resources towards desired conditions. Determining 

trend toward or away from allotment objectives allows rangeland managers to accurately 

determine the relative success of the management system and to adjust management to 

speed the accomplishment of objectives. Trend for a variety of rangeland resource 

parameters may need to be monitored. 

The long-term condition of riparian and upland grass and forb resources would be 

monitored at benchmark areas on each allotment. All Agency monitoring methods can be 

used in monitoring efforts. The following monitoring techniques would generally be used 

as needed: 

Cover-Frequency Index (CFI): The cover-frequency transect is commonly used to 

provide quantitative measurements of canopy cover and frequency by plant species, 

ground cover, and production by life form for inventory and monitoring purposes (USDA 

Forest Service 1996b). 

Photographs and Photo-points: Photographs are extremely useful in documenting 

change on the landscape. Photos should capture the essence of the plot, point, or transect, 

including important characteristics and features of the site. Photos need to include enough 

of the horizon-line to allow the photographer to easily repeat the photograph from the 

same angle at a different time. 

Green Line/Cross Section: Green line/cross sections are used to describe and quantify 

the distribution of riparian communities within the riparian area. A series of paced 

transects are established both perpendicular and parallel to the stream in order to measure 

the intercept of plant communities within the riparian area (USDA Forest Service 1996b). 

Multiple Indicator Method (MIM): This protocol combines observations of up to ten 

indicators (including greenline, streambank stability, livestock use on woody plants, 

woody species regeneration, stubble height, and streambank alteration) along the same 

transect. These indicators provide quantitative data to assess the current condition and 

trend of the streambanks, channels, and vegetation, as well as to provide data needed to 

refine and make annual changes to livestock management in order to meet long-term 

management objectives (Burton et al. 2007). 

SamplePoint Photomonitoring: “SamplePoint” is a manual image-analysis program 

designed to facilitate vegetation cover measurements from nadir digital images of any 

scale. Operating essentially as a digital point frame, the software loads images, places 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

42 

classification points on the image, and stores classification data to a database as the user 

classes each point. Functional use is not limited to vegetation classification. Measuring 

percent occurrence of objects from digital images can save time and expense compared to 

conventional field measurements. SamplePoint provides the user with a single-pixel 

sample point and the ability to view and identify the pixel context. Accuracy is 

comparable with the most accurate field-methods for ground-cover measurements 

(Rangelands Resources Research Unit- Cheyenne, Fort Collins). 

A specific monitoring plan for each allotment is included in appendix B. Documentation 

of rangeland monitoring results would be maintained in the allotment files at the 

respective district office. 

Watershed Conservation Practices 

Watershed conservation practice effectiveness monitoring would be conducted in 

allotments where necessary; this monitoring would also be used as water quality 

monitoring. Watershed conservation practices are described in appendix D. 

Other Resource Monitoring 

The following methods would be used to ensure that livestock grazing is compatible with 

other resource objectives in accordance with Forest Plan direction and other laws: 

Heritage Site Monitoring: All National Register of Historic Places eligible sites will be 

monitored on a 1 to 5 year basis in accordance with the SHPO concurrence letters for 

livestock grazing to verify that management practices are being implemented. 

Rare Plants: Surveys for R2 sensitive and SOLC plants are ongoing. If new occurrences 

are found, the district botanist and range personnel will need to coordinate to ensure the 

plants and their habitat are protected. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study __________________________________________ 

Consideration of alternative ways to achieve the purpose and need for action were 

explored by the ID team, considering environmental effects of the proposed action and 

issues brought forward during scoping. Potential alternatives were dismissed from 

further analysis if they did not meet the purpose and need for taking action, conflicted 

with Forest Plan direction or other laws or regulations, were duplicative of alternatives 

considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary 

environmental harm or unreasonable cost. 

Develop additional water in the Pope Springs Unit and North Pole Unit of French 

Creek; use salt/mineral placement to distribute livestock and continue grazing current 

numbers. 

Some actions are currently in-progress or planned for these pastures to address the need 

for additional water, as discussed at the beginning of chapter 3. Additional water sources 

and the use of other adaptive management strategies are a component of alternative 3 

(proposed action), analyzed in detail in this document. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

43 

Use range riding or other less costly methods to achieve desired conditions than 

lengthy pipelines that impact natural undeveloped springs and are expensive. 

Range riding is proposed as part of alternative 3 (proposed action) to reduce grazing 

impacts in sensitive areas; it is also one of the management options available under 

adaptive management for alternative 3. Range riding is not a viable alternative to 

pipelines, but is a viable alternative to fencing and the Forest Service agrees it can be an 

effective management technique to reduce the cost and maintenance of fences. This is 

part of alternative 3 (proposed action). 

Establish grass banks, swing pastures, temporary pastures, and short duration grazing 

or other methods to provide more flexibility for changing environmental 

conditions/climate change. 

The use of temporary pastures, short-duration grazing, and other methods are grazing 

management options available under alternative 3 (proposed action) using adaptive 

management. The Forest Service agrees these types of approaches can be helpful in some 

instances when environmental conditions change or other factors require changes in 

management. In addition, as part of alternative 3 (proposed action), a rest-rotation 

grazing system would be established, providing a fully rested pasture annually that allows 

for added flexibility in management. 

The Forest Service does not believe that any one of these six allotments is large enough 

to truly function as a grass bank. Proposed grazing strategies on all six allotments provide 

the flexibility to change livestock distribution, add pastures, use short-duration grazing 

systems, or reduce livestock stocking, among other options, if conditions warrant. If 

drought occurs, or a wildfire or other environmental conditions change, the Forest 

Service has the discretion to alter livestock grazing management to ensure Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines are met. For these reasons, this alternative, as a stand-alone 

alternative, was dismissed from further detailed analysis, recognizing that adaptive 

management options under alternative 3 (proposed action) provide options for pasture 

rotations, short-duration grazing, and other methods to address changing environmental 

conditions as needed. 

Create a more landscape-scale approach to livestock management—combine all 

allotments to provide more flexibility in management. 

The Forest Service does not agree that combining all allotments would provide more 

flexibility for management; creating larger allotments would actually be a step backward 

for the Agency, because historically, allotments were large and this often created 

problems with livestock distribution and administration. Smaller allotments are easier to 

manage and provide added flexibility to the Agency and the permittee when resource 

issues arise or changes in management are needed. For these reasons, this alternative was 

dismissed from further detailed analysis. 

Vacate French Creek Allotment due to the exorbitant cost required for needed riparian 

area protections and monitoring and to minimize current and anticipated future 

conflicts with private land owners. 

This is addressed by alternative 1 (no action) (no grazing) alternative. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

44 

No new springs would be developed; undeveloped springs are rare in the southern 

Black Hills and protecting those that remain would provide enhanced protection of this 

dwindling resource. 

The Forest Service recognizes that many springs are already developed. Currently 

developed springs comprise the majority of the pipeline and other spring development 

proposals included as part of alternative 3 (proposed action). The Forest Service also 

agrees that retaining undeveloped springs in their natural state without development is 

appropriate, wherever feasible. This is included as part of alternative 3 (proposed action) 

and is also addressed by alternative 1 (no action). 

No livestock grazing in the Fanny Boles Research Natural Area. 

The Forest Plan states in section III, page 17, that livestock grazing will not increase in 

the Fanny Boles Research Natural Area until a management plan is developed for this 

area. Maintaining livestock access to the area, as proposed as part of alternative 3 

(proposed action) and alternative 2 (current management), is consistent with the Forest 

Plan. When a management plan is developed for the research natural area, 

reconsideration of livestock grazing and its appropriateness would be made at that time. 

However, due to steep terrain and the predominance of mountain mahogany in this area, 

it currently receives only incidental livestock use. This is not expected to change under 

either of the action alternatives. For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from 

further detailed analysis. 

Reduce stocking to meet the purpose and need instead of costly range improvements to 

achieve desired results more quickly. 

The Forest Service disagrees that reduced stocking is a viable alternative to range 

improvements such as pipelines or fences; regardless of the number of livestock 

permitted on an allotment, providing water through pipelines or tanks and restricting 

movement to areas through fencing would still be necessary whether 10 head or 100 head 

were present. However, the Forest Service agrees that reducing stocking rates is an 

effective management option to meet certain desired conditions. Reduced stocking on the 

French Creek is part of alternative 3 (proposed action) for this reason. Long-term 

monitoring results in key areas and benchmark sites on the other allotments does not 

indicate the need for reduced stocking at the present time in these allotments, instead 

showing the need for site-specific protection measures for individual spring sites or 

riparian areas only. However, reducing the stocking rate is an option for any allotment 

under adaptive management if future monitoring results indicate the need. 

The Forest Service recognizes that range improvements are expensive. The cost of 

improvements is shared with the permittee (often through cost-sharing and labor) and is 

not funded solely by the Agency. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Table 7. Comparison of alternatives by components, primary project objectives and key issues 

 Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 2 – Current 

Management Alternative 3 – Prop

Alternative Components Description No livestock grazing would be 

permitted on the allotments. Existing permits would be phased out. This alternative provides an environmental baseline for evaluation of the action alternatives. 

Livestock grazing would continue as prescribed under current allotment management plans and annual operating instructions. 

Adaptive managemefocus on the end resresource, as opposespecific course of acbe deviated from ovemanagement options tables 4 and 5. 

Permitted numbers 0 6,403 AMs/ 

1,491 cow/calf pairs 

6,455 AMs/ 1,491 cow/calf pairs 

Range improvements Unneeded fences, gates, and other 

improvements would eventually be removed. 

Existing improvements would be maintained and reconstructed as needed. New improvements not currently authorized in an existing allotment management plan would not be developed. 

Existing improvemenmaintained and reconeeded. Some existwould be removed otanks) and some new would be built (2 milepipeline; 16 stock tanspring/riparian area developments). If neand management do desired conditions, aimprovements (tabledesign criteria) would 

Grazing management Not applicable because livestock 

grazing would not be permitted on the allotments.

Deferred rotation grazing systems on 5 allotments would continue. The Water Draw Allotment would remain vacant and would not be grazed. Deferred rotation utilization guidelines in table 6 would be applied. Livestock management decisions would be based on achieving Forest Plan objectives and guidelines and the desired conditions shown in table 2. 

Deferred rotation gracontinue on 4 allotmThe Water Draw Allograzed by 50 head in rotation system The French Creek Agrazed as a 4-pastursystem with some chuse. Rest rotation and deutilization guidelines applied. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

46 

 Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 2 – Current 

Management Alternative 3 – Prop

Permitted numbers of livestock may be adjusted in order to meet or move toward the desired conditions. 

Livestock managemebe based on achieviobjectives and guidedesired conditions sh5. Permitted numbers oadjusted in order to mtoward the desired c

Monitoring Not applicable because livestock 

grazing would not be permitted on the allotments. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are the same. Implementation and effec

would occur at benchmarks and areas of concern as shown in Utilization guidelines are shown in table 6. Specific monitorinin the AOI. 

Project Objectives Improve livestock management so that it is consistent with the Forest Plan 

Consistent with Forest Plan for resource management and protection, but does not achieve Forest Plan Goal 3—providing sustainable commodity uses and productive use of range forage. 

Generally consistent with Forest Plan, but does not meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines in all areas, particulary in riparian areas; would not achieve standards and guidelines and desired conditions for riparian areas and wildlife habitat as well or as quickly as alternative 3. 

Is most consistent wdirection by providing uses in an acceptabresource conditions, toward or maintenanconditions in a reaso

Improve bank stability and increase riparian vegetation diversity and abundance in specific areas so spring and stream health, wildlife habitat, and riparian ecosystem conditions are moving toward desired conditions 

Met; these resource conditions would improve in the short- and long term. 

Not met; these resource conditions would not move toward desired conditions in a reasonable timeframe with no change in current management. 

Met; proposed actionmanagement options these resource conc

Improve administration of the French Creek Allotment and minimize conflicts with private land owners, where feasible and practical 

Met; removal of livestock from this allotment would remove the conflict. 

Not met; current conflicts would remain. 

Met; movement of 2 Water Draw Allotmeand proposed actionthis concern. 

Key Issues Riparian Health Measurement indicators: 

9.81 miles improved (90%)/ 29 areas of concern improved (100%) 

1.64 miles improved (15%)/ 5 areas of concern improved (17%) 

9.81 miles improved 16 areas of concern 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

 Alternative 1 – No Action 

Alternative 2 – Current 

Management Alternative 3 – Prop

miles of improved stream and riparian health; number of improved watershed areas of concern Range Improvements and Cost Measurement indicators: total number of range improvements; total cost (cost of improvements and maintenance; does not include administration or monitoring costs) 

0 new range improvements. $0 spent on new range improvements and maintenance. $672,810 spent by USFS over 10 years on removal of improvements and continued maintenace on some kept for wildlife. Over long term, cost would be eliminated. 

5 new range improvements (for heritage resource protection). $24,430 spent on new range improvements but resource concern areas would not be addressed except for heritage resource concern areas. $70,440 spent over 10 years by USFS. Costs would continue over long term. 

4 stock tanks removemiles of fence (1 – 1and 0.5 miles of drift permanent fence); 8 stock tanks; 14 sprinprotections; and 2 spwould address resou$165, 140 spent oveCosts would continu
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

48 Table 8. Summary of environmental impacts 

Relevant Resource Tracking Issue 

Alternative 1 –

No Action 

Alternative 2 –Current Management 

Alternative 3 –Proposed Action 

Soil and WaterAcres of detrimentally impacted soils 

0 acres; 100% improvement in acres of detrimentally impacted soils due to livestock 

262 acres; no improvement in acres of detrimentally impacted soils due to livestock 

316 acres; 20% indetrimentally impalivestock 

Miles of improved stream and riparian area health 

9.81 miles improved (90%) 1.64 miles improved (15%) 9.81 miles improv

Number of improved areas of concern 

29 areas of concern improved (100%) 5 areas of concern improved (17%) 16 areas of conce

Rangeland VegetationRangeland condition and trend Overall improvement in rangeland 

condition and trend, at least in the short term 

Maintenance and/or improvement of current rangeland condition and trend; areas would progress toward desired conditions at different rates; resource concern areas would remain the same or may improve slowly over the long term 

Overall improvemcondition and trennoticeable in resoareas would progconditions at diffeachieve desired cquickly than altern

Noxious weeds Risk of noxious weed 

introduction/spread would decrease with removal of daily operations and activities; some invasive species may increase with removal of grazing over the long term 

Risk of noxious weed introduction/spread would remain unchanged due to continued risk of introduction through daily operations and activities, minimized through adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

Risk of noxious wintroduction/spreadue to new improvwould be minimizeproject design feaPlan standards an

Botany Sensitive species and species of local concern (SOLC)

No direct effects to sensitive or SOLC species; short-term improvement in suitable habitat for all species; potential for indirect loss of habitat with increased fine fuel and increased risk of wildfire over long term Implementation of Atlernative 1 may adversely impact 7 sensitive plants but is not likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing or loss of viability rangewide 

Localized, direct effects to sensitive and SOLC species habitat from livestock trampling and indirectly through degraded riparian habitat conditions in some areas Implementation of alternative 2 may adversely impact 7 sensitive plants, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability range-wide 

Localzied, direct eand SOLC specietrampling, minimizdesign features; hdue to improved rconditions Implementation of adversely impact but is not likely to toward Federal lisviability range-wid
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Relevant Resource Tracking Issue 

Alternative 1 –No Action 

Alternative 2 –Current Management 

Alternative 3 –Proposed Action 

Wildlife Sensitive, species of local concern, management indicator species (MIS), migratory birds and Partners and Flight (PIF), demand species

Riparian-dependent species habitat would improve the most under this alternative; increase in upland ungulate browse and bird nesting and deer fawning cover No impact to 16 sensitive species and beneficial impacts to 3 sensitive species All 17 SOLC and 7 MIS populations would persist; habitat improvement due to removal of grazing impacts All 5 migratory bird and 1 PIF population would remain stable; habitat improvement due to removal of grazing impacts Elk and deer populations would remain stable; habitat improvement due to removal of grazing impacts 

No change in riparian-dependent species habitat or upland habitat No impact to 13 sensitive species; may impact 6 sensitive species, but would not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability All 17 SOLC and 7 MIS populations would persist All 5 migratory bird and 1 PIF population would remain stable, but direct effects from nest trampling and cover reduction would continue Elk and deer populations would remain stable; localized adverse effects would continue due to loss of some forage and cover from livestock use 

Riparian-dependewould improve moalternative 2 No impact to 12 smay impact 7 senwould not result in Federal listing or All 17 SOLC and would persist; habdue to riparian aremanagement chaAll 5 migratory birpopulation would habitat improvemearea protections achanges Elk and deer popuremain stable; habdue to riparian aremanagement cha

Fisheries Native and recreational fisheries

No adverse direct effects to fish; shortand long-term beneficial effects due to improved riparian habitat conditions along Ruby Creek and French Creek 

Negligible, localized direct effects possible due to trampling of fish eggs and larvae; localized adverse impacts at stream sites would persist 

Negligible, localizpossible due to traand larvae; long-teffects due to imphabitat conditions and French Creekachieved as quickalternative 1 

Cultural Resources Determination under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

No undertaking and therefore no effect No adverse effect No adverse effect 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

50 

Relevant Resource Tracking Issue 

Alternative 1 –No Action 

Alternative 2 –Current Management 

Alternative 3 –Proposed Action 

Socioeconomics Present net value—all allotments combined

Permittees: $0 USFS: ($672,810) 

Permittees: $545,250 USFS: ($53,740) 

Permittees: $435,USFS: ($150,370

Climate Change Methane production contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to ecosystem resiliency 

No methane production from livestock and therefore no contribution to greenhouse gas emissions Would maintain and likely improve resiliency of habitat which may improve the ability for the project area to function better under changing climatic conditions 

Methane production due to enteric fermentation from domestic livestock, but this would not be measurable at the regional or global scale Would maintain resiliency of habitat; would not measurably improve current conditions 

Methane productifermentation from but this would not the regional or gloWould maintain aresiliency of habitimprove the ability to function better climatic conditionsadaptive managemthis effect 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

51 

CHAPTER 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter section is organized by resource and describes aspects of the environment 

likely to be affected by implementation of alternatives (affected environment), and the 

environmental effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that would result from 

implementing the alternatives (environmental consequences). Together, these 

descriptions form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives 

presented in chapter 2. 

Methodology ____________________________________ 

The impact analysis and conclusions contained in this chapter were based on Forest staff 

knowledge of the resources and site, review of existing literature and Agency studies, 

information provided by specialists within the Forest Service and other agencies, and 

professional judgment. The methodology section at the beginning of each resource 

heading describes any additional specific data collection/analysis or other methods used 

for that resource. 

Potential impacts in this chapter are described in terms of type (direct, indirect, 

cumulative; and are the effects beneficial or adverse?), context (are the effects sitespecific, local, or even regional?) duration (are the effects short-term or long-term?), and 

intensity. 

Direct effects occur at the same time and in the same locations as actions that cause them. 

Indirect effects are those that occur at a later time or in a different location than the causal 

actions. Cumulative impacts result from the additive impacts of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in or near the area. 

For purposes of this analysis, short-term effects are those expected within the next 1 to 10 

years (throughout the course of project implementation) and long-term effects are those 

expected between 10 and 20 years or more unless specifically defined in individual 

resource sections below. 

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes the 

action (40 CFR 1508.7). 

The baseline used for cumulative effects analysis is the current condition. The 

cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify effects of past human actions by 

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not 

taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical 

to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by 

innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate individual 

actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

52 

providing details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict 

cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. By looking at current 

conditions, we are sure to capture all residual effects of past human actions and natural 

events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. The 

Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, 

regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate 

cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions 

without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” The cumulative 

effects analysis in this EA is also consistent with Forest Service National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f). For these reasons, the analysis of past 

actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions. 

The area of cumulative impact for most resources was chosen to be the allotment 

boundary and not the watershed boundary because perennial water is minimal in the 

project area and allotments occur within only small portions of any one watershed. 

However, the area of cumulative impact may differ depending on the resource affected. 

For example, wildlife populations cross allotment boundaries. If a different cumulative 

impact area is chosen for a specific resource, it is discussed in that specific resource 

section below. Other allotments on the district are under relatively new allotment 

management plans. 

On-going, in-progress, and planned actions, as well as other on-going management 

activities occurring within the allotments, are summarized briefly in table 9. Timber 

sales with decision dates before 2005 were not listed individually in the table because 

these actions are complete and are reflected in current conditions, as stated above. 

Wildfires that occurred before 2005 were also not listed because their effects are also 

reflected in the current condition, as also stated above. 

How these on-going, in-progress, and planned activities influence current conditions is 

discussed in the affected environment sections of each specific resource section. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

53 

Table 9. On-going, in-progress, and planned activities considered for the Hell Canyon Range 2010 

Project 

Allotment Range Improvements1 Vegetation and Fuels Management Other Activities 

Bull Flats None Noxious weed treatment Recreation: developed 

camping (Comanche Park), 

dispersed camping, OHV 

use, hunting, hiking, 

camping 

Travel management 

planning and potential 

reduction in roads 

French 

Creek 

Upper French Creek fen 

exclosure 

North Pole spring 

improvement and exclosure 

Ruby Spring dam cleanout 

Birch Tree seep cleanout 

and development of dugout 

Warren Gulch spring 

development 

Spring seep development 

Section 6 spring exclosure 

and tank/pipeline 

development 

Noxious weed treatment 

Goat Timber Sale 

Waball Timber Sale 

Wabash Timber Sale 

Recreation: dispersed 

camping, OHV use, hunting, 

hiking, camping 

Travel management 

planning and potential 

reduction in roads 

Cattail land exchange 

(land removed from the 

French Creek Allotment) 

Lithograph None Noxious weed treatment Recreation: dispersed 

camping, OHV use, hunting, 

hiking, camping 

Travel management 

planning and potential 

reduction in roads 

Lower 

Beaver 

Lower Boles pipeline and 

tank system installation 

Bacon Spring 

maintenance and exclosure 

Sled Spring pipeline 

system 

Summit Springs Unit 

pipeline and tanks 

Summit Spring and pond 

improvement 

Sherwood Spring 

improvement 

Noxious weed treatment 

Sherwood Timber Sale 

Briggs Vegetation 

Management Project 

Hell Canyon Maintenance 

Burn 

Recreation: dispersed 

camping, OHV use, hunting, 

hiking, camping 

Travel management 

planning and potential 

reduction in roads 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

54 

Allotment Range Improvements1 Vegetation and Fuels Management Other Activities 

Tepee Middle Antelope Spring 

cleanout 

Mud Spring reservoir 

cleanout 

Noxious weed treatment 

Hell Canyon Maintenance 

Burn 

Jasper Tree Planting 

Recreation: dispersed 

camping, OHV use, hunting, 

hiking, camping 

Travel management 

planning and potential 

reduction in roads 

Water 

Draw 

None Noxious weed treatment 

Hell Canyon Maintenance 

Burn 

Recreation: dispersed 

camping, OHV use, hunting, 

hiking, camping 

Travel management 

planning and potential 

reduction in roads 

Cattail land exchange 

(land added to Water Draw 

Allotment) 

1 All in-progress and planned range improvements (with documented decisions) are also shown on the allotment maps in 

appendix A. 

The specialist reports used in preparation of this EA are: 

 Soils and Water Report (Gonyer 2010) 

 Rangeland Vegetation Report and methane production calculation sheet (Bindel 

2010a and 2010b) 

 Wildlife Report and Biological Assessment and Evaluation (Clark 2010a and 

Clark 2010b) 

 Botany Report and Biological Assessment and Evaluation (Englebert 2010; Scott 

2010) 

 Fisheries Report (Hirtzel 2010) 

 Cultural Resource Report (Engelhart 2010) 

 Socioeconomics Report (Reedy 2010) 

Other resources (forest vegetation, recreation, lands and minerals, fire and fuels, and 

visual resources would not be measurably affected by proposed actions and no issues 

were identified regarding these resources during internal or public scoping. These 

resources were therefore dismissed from further detailed analysis, as documented in the 

project record. 

Soil and Water ___________________________________ 

Methodology 

GIS (geographic information systems) coverages available for the Black Hills National 

Forest were used to identify hydrologic unit boundaries, topography, precipitation and 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

55 

climate, geology, soils, slopes, streams, drainage networks, floodplains, 

riparian/wetlands, beneficial uses, watershed conditions, and water quality and quantity. 

During field surveys, conducted from 2007 to 2009, streams were classified as perennial, 

intermittent, or ephemeral, and connected disturbed areas (CDAs) and areas of concern 

were identified and mapped. CDAs are areas that contribute sediment to streams or 

wetlands causing degradation of physical function or water quality, or increased peak 

flows that may alter physical channel processes. Areas of concern are those areas where 

bank trampling, hummocking, and unnaturally short vegetation occur. In order to 

determine soil conditions, USDA Forest Service Region 2 Soil Health Assessments 

(Page-Dumroese et al. 2009) were completed at strategic locations across the allotments. 

Interdisciplinary Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) evaluations were performed and 

baseline information was gathered using Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM), both in 

2008. PFC was used to determine the functionality and trend for riparian areas. 

Functional ratings are either “proper functioning condition”, “functional—at risk”, 

“nonfunctional”, or “unknown”. If the rating is “functional—at risk” then trend is 

assessed with values of “upward”, “downward”, or “not apparent”. A complete 

description of the use of this survey is found in the Bureau of Land Management’s 

technical reference publications (BLM 1993 and 1994). 

Baseline information used to assess impacts to the soil and water resource was provided 

by Forest Service specialists using professional judgment. 

Implementation of the action alternatives can affect soil productivity by compacting and 

eroding the soil. Compaction can decrease the infiltration rates and plant growth. 

Erosion can remove the critical layers of the soil affecting soil productivity and plant 

growth. Areas showing direct effects are areas that cattle tend to concentrate and stay in 

for extended periods of time such as at water developments, salting locations, livestock 

trails, and shading areas. Streams and riparian areas can also be affected by the 

implementation of the action alternatives. Streams can be affected by changes in channel 

morphology and water quality. Water quality has several parameters that can be affected; 

temperature/oxygen, sediment, nutrients, and pathogens. Riparian/wetlands areas are 

associated with water and can also be affected. 

To compare alternatives, three indicators will be used; one related to soils and two related 

to riparian areas and streams; these are: 

 Acres of detrimentally impacted soils (the Forest Plan establishes standards and 

guidelines for soils: standard 1103 includes a threshold for detrimental soil 

disturbance in any land unit at 15 percent (USDA Forest Service 2006). 

 Miles of improved stream and riparian area health 

 Number of improved areas of concern 

The analysis area for cumulative effects was bounded in space as the allotment 

boundaries, for reasons described at the beginning of this chapter. The cumulative effects 

analysis was bounded in time by the duration of the allotment management plan, 

approximately 10 to 15 years into the future. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

56 

Affected Environment 

A watershed is defined as “the catchment area or drainage basin from which the waters of 

a stream or stream system are drawn” (Gove 1996). The term watershed describes an area 

of land that drains downslope to the lowest point. The water moves through a network of 

drainage pathways, both underground and on the surface. Generally, these pathways 

converge into streams and rivers, which become progressively larger as the water moves 

on downstream, eventually reaching an estuary and the ocean (Watershed Definition 

2003). Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 6 watersheds are generally 10,000 acres to 50,000 

acres in size. HUC 7 watersheds are generally 5,000 to 10,000 acres in size (the next size 

smaller within a HUC 6 watershed). A watershed is made up of different components, 

including soils, springs and streams, floodplains, wetlands, beneficial uses, watershed 

condition, and water quality and quantity. These watershed components are discussed 

where applicable for each allotment, with a few exceptions: 

 Watershed condition classes as presented in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 1997) would not change with implementation of any of the alternatives. 

These Forest Plan condition classes are more like risk classes; many of the factors 

(e.g., erosive soils and steep slopes) used in determining watershed ratings would 

not change with management actions. Most watersheds in the project area are in 

condition class II (Bull Flats, French Creek, most of Lower Beaver, most of Tepee 

and the Water Draw Allotments) and a small portion of the Lower Beaver and 

Tepee Allotments are in condition class I (see glossary). These classes would not 

change with implementation of any of the alternatives. 

 Stream flow and flow regime would not be measurably affected by 

implementation of any of the alternatives because these important components of 

aquatic ecosystems can only be altered by major changes in cover type or ground 

cover, dense road networks, or water projects. 

 Stream connectivity would not be measurably affected by implementation of any 

of the alternatives because no new in-stream barriers or removal of existing instream barriers are proposed under the alternatives. All existing road and stream 

crossings that are identified as CDAs would remain in their current condition. 

 Floodplains would not be measurably affected by implementation of any of the 

alternatives. No changes would occur to the physical features of floodplains with 

or without livestock grazing. All alternatives would meet the requirement of 

Executive Order 11988 for Floodplain Management. 

Bull Flats Allotment 

The Bull Flats Allotment is located within parts of four HUC 7 watersheds and one HUC 

6 watershed. Table 10 shows the relationship of the Bull Flats Allotment to the HUC 6 

watershed. 

Soils. There are 19 different soil map units within the Bull Flats Allotment. Four of these 

represent approximately 85 percent of the allotment. Three of the soil map units have a 

very high erosion hazard rating (due to steepness of slope) and comprise 16 percent of the 

allotment. Soils within meadows or grasses are often unique and different from soils that 

support timber stands. Seven of the soil map units, representing 5 percent of the 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

57 

allotment, generally support native grasses. Thirteen soil map units generally support 

trees, which is most of the area. Six soil map units were visited on the ground 

specifically to conduct a soil health assessment. Observations indicated that soils are 

healthy and functioning properly; there were no indications of erosion, compaction, or 

loss of organic matter/ground cover at the sites. 

Soil impacts as a result of livestock grazing are occurring on less than 1 percent of the 

allotment, or approximately 30 acres (table 10). These include watering areas, saltlicks, 

cattle trails, and cattle shading areas and, for purposes of this analysis, are considered 

detrimentally impacted soils. 

Water. There is an estimated 21 miles of drainages within the allotment; 19 miles of 

these are ephemeral, less than a mile is perennial, and less than a mile is intermittent. 

Primary drainages include Layton Canyon, Lightning Creek, and Pleasant Valley Creek. 

The only riparian areas are along Lightning Creek. The southern section is in excellent 

riparian condition (and was assigned a “robust” stream health rating and is at Proper 

Functioning Condition (PFC)) and the northern section is recovering from past impacts 

(and was assigned an “At-Risk” rating moving towards Robust and is at PFC). 

There are 1.30 miles of mapped linear wetlands and 1 acre of mapped polygon wetlands, 

both classified as palustrine. Based on aerial photo interpretation, knowledge of the area, 

and professional judgment, these are not considered jurisdictional wetlands. 

No streams or waterbodies within the allotment are listed in the South Dakota 303(d) 

Waterbody List (SD DNR 2008 and 2010). Since streams within the allotment are not 

listed, it is assumed that the water quality standards are being met; however no known 

monitoring or investigations have been completed to verify this assumption. There are no 

connected disturbed areas on the Bull Flats Allotment. 

Areas of Concern. There are no areas of concern. 

French Creek Allotment 

The French Creek Allotment is located within parts of six HUC 7 watersheds and two 

HUC 6 watersheds (table 10). 

Soils. There are 19 different soil map units within the French Creek Allotment. Three of 

these represent approximately 89 percent of the allotment. Two of the soil map units 

have a very high erosion hazard rating (due to steepness of slope) and comprise 6 percent 

of the allotment. Soils within meadows or grasses are often unique and different from 

soils that support timber stands. Ten of the soil map units, representing 6 percent of the 

allotment, generally support native grasses. Nine soil map units generally support trees, 

which is most of the area. 

Six soil map units were visited on the ground specifically to conduct a soil health 

assessment. Observations indicated that soils are healthy and functioning properly, even 

though some areas showed signs of heavy grazing. There were no indications of erosion, 

compaction or loss of organic matter/ground cover at the sites. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

58 Table 10. Affected environment summary by allotment 

Allotment 

HUC 6 Watersheds (percent of watershed in allotment) 

Acres of Detrimentally Impacted Soils 

Connected Disturbed areas (CDAs) Stream Health Ratings1

MPeInSt

Bull Flats Upper Pleasant Valley Creek (30%) 30 0 Lightning Creek: Robust and AtRisk French Creek Upper Pleasant Valley Creek (9%) 

Upper French Creek (14%) 

29 5 French Creek: Diminished 

Ruby Creek: At Risk 

Lithograph Whoopup Creek (<1%) 

Middle Pass Creek (14%) Tepee Canyon (27%) 

53 0 Not applicable; no streams 

Lower Beaver Beaver Creek-Rats Valley Creek (18%) 

Roby Canyon (38%) Whoopup Creek (13%) 

65 0 At-Risk for 4 springs; Robust for 

one spring 

Tepee Whoopup Creek (35%) 

Roby Canyon (2%) Upper Pass Creek (14%) Middle Pass Creek (2%) Tepee Canyon (11%) 

85 0 At-Risk for short sections 

originating at springs 

Water Draw Upper Pleasant Valley Creek (4%) 

Lower Pleasant Valley Creek (1%) Middle Pass Creek (25%) Pass Creek-East Pass Creek (<1%) 

24 0 At-Risk for short sections 

originating at springs 

Total 286 5 

1 See the glossary for definitions of these ratings. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

59 

Soil impacts as a result of livestock grazing are occurring on less than 1 percent of the 

allotment, or approximately 29 acres (table 10). These include watering areas, saltlicks, 

cattle trails, and cattle shading areas and, for purposes of this analysis, are considered 

detrimentally impacted soils. 

Water. There are an estimated 22 miles of drainages within the allotment; over 15 miles 

of these are ephemeral, a little over 2 miles are perennial, and a little over 4 miles are 

intermittent. Primary drainages include Bugtown Gulch, Crow Creek, French Creek, Joe 

Gulch, Lightning Creek, Ruby Creek, South Fork French Creek, and Warren Gulch. 

Stream health ratings were assigned for French Creek and Ruby Creek. The upper section 

of French Creek is grazed, has a water gap that is impacted, and has several low water 

crossings. The middle section is grazed and has some placer mining impacts. The lower 

section is not grazed, but the channel has been channelized by placer mining. All of 

French Creek stream health is considered “Diminished.” PFC evaluations indicate Proper 

Functioning Condition at all sites evaluated except for one, which was Functional-At 

Risk with an upward trend (contributing factors to this designation include mining 

activities and road encroachment). Ruby Creek only occurs on a small portion of National 

Forest. This section is grazed and there are a couple of locations along the stream that act 

like water gaps. Stream health on this section is considered At-Risk. PFC evaluations 

indicate the sites are in proper functioning condition. The difference in the stream health 

rating and PFC evaluation indicate differences in assessment techniques and can be 

interpreted to mean that basic ecologic and hydrologic functions of the riparian area are 

being met but there is still room for improvement. 

There are approximately 7 miles of mapped linear wetlands and 3 acres of mapped 

polygon wetlands classified as palustrine and riverine. Based on aerial photo 

interpretation, knowledge of the area, and professional judgment, most of these areas are 

not considered jurisdictional wetlands. However, two additional areas were identified as 

wetlands; one is a wetland created by a rock sill and the other is a fen with a floating mat. 

One stream, French Creek, is listed in the South Dakota 2010 303(d) Waterbody List as 

being impaired, meaning that it is not meeting water quality standards for its beneficial 

use as a cold water marginal fishery and limited contact recreation. The impairment is 

from levels of dissolved oxygen caused by drought-related impacts and natural sources 

(SD DNR 2008 and 2010). The state will be completing a full assessment of French 

Creek in summer 2010 which should provide updated information on this situation. There 

are five connected disturbed areas along French Creek (table 10). Three of these are at 

low water crossings where gravel was used to harden the crossings, and two of these are 

old stream crossings that are contributing sediment to the stream. 

Areas of Concern. There are four areas of concern on the French Creek Allotment, all 

associated with springs (McKenna, North Pole, North Pole 2, and Upper French Creek 

fen). The Soil and Water Report (Gonyer 2010) provides more detail on these areas. 

Lithograph Allotment 

The Lithograph Allotment is located within parts of eight HUC 7 watersheds and three 

HUC 6 watersheds (table 10). 

Soils. There are 18 different soil map units within the Lithograph Allotment. Five of 

these represent approximately 91 percent of the allotment. Four of the soil map units 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

60 

have a very high erosion hazard rating (due to steepness of slope) and comprise 22 

percent of the allotment. Soils within meadows or grasses are often unique and different 

from soils that support timber stands. Ten of the soil map units, representing 18 percent 

of the allotment, generally support native grasses. Eight soil map units generally support 

trees, which is most of the area. 

Five soil map units were visited on the ground specifically to conduct a soil health 

assessment. Observations indicated that soils are healthy and functioning properly; there 

were no indications of erosion, compaction, or loss of organic matter/ground cover at the 

sites. 

Soil impacts as a result of livestock grazing are occurring on less than 1 percent of the 

allotment, or approximately 53 acres (table 10). These include watering areas, saltlicks, 

cattle trails, and cattle shading areas and, for purposes of this analysis, are considered 

detrimentally impacted soils. 

Water. There is an estimated 78 miles of drainages within the allotment, all of them 

ephemeral. Hence, no stream health ratings were assigned. Primary drainages include 

Hell Canyon, Schenk Canyon, and Tepee Canyon. 

There are less than 0.5 miles of mapped linear wetlands and less than 1 acre of mapped 

polygon wetlands, both classified as palustrine. Based on field visits, aerial photo 

interpretation, knowledge of the area, and professional judgment, these are not considered 

jurisdictional wetlands. 

No streams or waterbodies within the allotment are listed in the South Dakota 303(d) 

Waterbody List (SD DNR 2008 and 2010) and this is consistent with the fact that there 

are no perennial or intermittent streams within this allotment. There are no connected 

disturbed areas on the Lithograph Allotment. 

Areas of Concern. There are eight areas of concern, all associated with springs (Piper, 

Babcock, Baldwin, Jumpoff, Lost, Flag Hill, Chipmunk, and McKenna springs). 

Perennial water is lacking on this allotment and springs and wet areas are unique and 

limited resources that are currently being impacted. The Soil and Water Report (Gonyer 

2010) provides more details on these areas. 

Lower Beaver Allotment 

The Lower Beaver Allotment is located within parts of 14 HUC 7 watersheds and 3 HUC 

6 watersheds (table 10). 

Soils. There are 26 different soil map units within the Lower Beaver Allotment. Six of 

these represent approximately 77 percent of the allotment. Six of the soil map unit have a 

very high erosion hazard rating (due to steepness of slope) and comprise 30 percent of the 

allotment. Soils within meadows or grasses are often unique and different from soils that 

support timber stands. Twelve of the soil map units, representing 5 percent of the 

allotment, generally support native grasses. Thirteen soil map units generally support 

trees, which is most of the area. 

Seven soil map units were visited on the ground specifically to conduct a soil health 

assessment. Observations indicated that soils are healthy and functioning properly; there 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

61 

were no indications of erosion, compaction, or loss of organic matter/ground cover at the 

sites. 

Soil impacts as a result of livestock grazing are occurring on less than 1 percent of the 

allotment, or approximately 65 acres (table 10). These include watering areas, saltlicks, 

cattle trails, and cattle shading areas and, for purposes of this analysis, are considered 

detrimentally impacted soils. 

Water. There are an estimated 97 miles of drainages within the allotment; over 95 miles 

of which are ephemeral, a little over 1 mile is perennial, and less than 0.5 mile is 

intermittent. Primary drainages include Boles Canyon, Buck Springs Canyon, Getty’s 

Canyon, Kinney Canyon, Meadow Draw, Redbird Draw, Roby Canyon, Sherwood 

Canyon, Thompson Canyon, and Whoopup Creek. Stream health ratings were assigned 

to five springs on the allotment that comprise short perennial stream stretches. Four of 

these were assigned an At-Risk rating (Sherwood, Sled, Summit, and Thomson springs) 

and one was assigned a Robust rating (Blowout Spring). 

There are approximately 28 miles of mapped linear wetlands and a little over 3 acres of 

mapped polygon wetlands, classified as both palustrine and riverine. Based on aerial 

photo interpretation, knowledge of the area and professional judgment, these are not 

considered jurisdictional wetlands. 

No streams or waterbodies within the allotment are listed in the South Dakota 303(d) 

Waterbody List (SD DNR 2008 and 2010). Since the streams are not listed, it is assumed 

that the water quality standards are being met; however no known monitoring or 

investigations have been completed to verify this assumption. There are no connected 

disturbed areas on the Lower Beaver Allotment. 

Areas of Concern. There are six areas of concern, all associated with springs (Sled, 

Barrel, Old Road, Indian, Summit, and Sherwood springs). Perennial water is limited on 

this allotment and springs and wet areas are unique and limited resources that are 

currently being impacted. The Soil and Water Report (Gonyer 2010) provides more 

detail on these areas. 

Tepee Allotment 

The Tepee Allotment is located within parts of 13 HUC 7 watersheds and 5 HUC 6 

watersheds (table 10). 

Soils. There are 20 different soil map units within the Tepee Allotment. Nine of these 

represent approximately 93 percent of the allotment. Four of the soil map units have a 

very high erosion hazard rating (due to steepness of slope) and comprise 22 percent of the 

allotment. Soils within meadows or grasses are often unique and different from soils that 

support timber stands. Nine of the soil map units, representing 8 percent of the allotment, 

generally support native grasses. Thirteen soil map units generally support trees, which 

is most of the area. 

Eight soil map units were visited on the ground specifically to conduct a soil health 

assessment. Observations indicated that soils are healthy and functioning properly; there 

were no indications of erosion, compaction, or loss of organic matter/ground cover at the 

sites. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

62 

Soil impacts as a result of livestock grazing are occurring on less than 1 percent of the 

allotment, or approximately 85 acres (table 10). These include watering areas, saltlicks, 

cattle trails, and cattle shading areas and, for purposes of this analysis, are considered 

detrimentally impacted soils. 

Water. There is an estimated 102 miles of drainages within the allotment, the vast 

majority of which are ephemeral; only approximately one-third of a mile is perennial and 

no drainages are intermittent. Primary drainages include Buck Springs Canyon, Gillette 

Canyon, Hay Draw, Hell Canyon, Hop Draw, Tepee Canyon, West Hell Canyon, and 

West Tepee Canyon. Perennial streams are very short segments beginning at springs and 

flowing only a short distance. These areas have been developed for livestock watering 

sites with some partially fenced. Consequently, these areas are impacted. Stream health 

rating at these sites is considered At-Risk. 

There are 21 miles of mapped linear wetlands and 3.5 acres of mapped polygon wetlands, 

all classified as palustrine. Based on aerial photo interpretation, knowledge of the area 

and professional judgment, these are not considered jurisdictional wetlands. 

No streams or waterbodies within the allotment are listed in the South Dakota 303(d) 

Waterbody List (SD DNR 2008 and 2010). Since the streams are not listed, it is assumed 

that the water quality standards are being met; however no known monitoring or 

investigations have been completed to verify this assumption. There are no connected 

disturbed areas on the Tepee Allotment. 

Areas of Concern. There are five areas of concern, all associated with springs 

(Deadhorse, Poplar, Gould, Townley, and Blacktail springs). Perennial water is limited 

on this allotment and springs and wet areas are unique and limited resources that are 

currently being impacted. The Soil and Water Report (Gonyer 2010) provides more 

details on these areas. 

Water Draw Allotment 

The Water Draw Allotment is located within parts of five HUC 7 watersheds and four 

HUC 6 watersheds (table 10). 

Soils. There are 10 different soil map units within the Water Draw Allotment. Three of 

these represent approximately 87 percent of the allotment. Three of the soil map units 

also have a very high erosion hazard rating (due to steepness of slope) and comprise 16 

percent of the allotment. Soils within meadows or grasses are often unique and different 

from soils that support timber stands. Four of the soil map units, representing 9 percent 

of the allotment, generally support native grasses. Six soil map units generally support 

trees, which is most of the area. 

Five soil map units were visited on the ground specifically to conduct a soil health 

assessment. Observations indicated that soils are healthy and functioning properly; there 

were no indications of erosion, compaction, or loss of organic matter/ground cover at the 

sites. 

Soil impacts as a result of livestock grazing are occurring on less than 1 percent of the 

allotment, or approximately 24 acres (table 10). These include watering areas, saltlicks, 

cattle trails, and cattle shading areas and, for purposes of this analysis, are considered 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

63 

detrimentally impacted soils. Since it has been several years since this allotment has been 

grazed, these detrimentally impacted areas are improving and currently approaching zero. 

Water. There are an estimated 29 miles of drainages within the allotment, the vast 

majority of which are ephemeral; only a little over 0.5 mile is perennial and none are 

intermittent. Primary drainages include Hell Canyon, Layton Canyon, Lithograph 

Canyon, S&G Canyon, and Water Draw Spring. Perennial streams within this allotment 

are very short segments beginning at springs and flowing only a short distance. These 

areas are important as water sources for wildlife, and wildlife use is evident. Stream 

health ratings at these sites are At-Risk. PFC evaluations indicate the sites are in Proper 

Functioning Condition. The difference in the stream health rating and PFC evaluation 

indicate differences in assessment techniques and can be interpreted to mean that basic 

ecologic and hydrologic functions of the riparian area are being met but there is still room 

for improvement. 

Mapped linear wetlands and mapped polygon wetlands are extremely limited (0.09 miles 

and 0.17 acres, respectively) and they are classified as palustrine. Based on aerial photo 

interpretation, knowledge of the area, and professional judgment, these are not considered 

jurisdictional wetlands. 

No streams or waterbodies within the allotment are listed in the South Dakota 303(d) 

Waterbody List (SD DNR 2008 and 2010). Since the streams are not listed, it is assumed 

that the water quality standards are currently being met; however no known monitoring 

or investigations have been competed to verify this assumption. There are no connected 

disturbed areas on the Water Draw Allotment. 

Areas of Concern. There are six areas of concern; all associated with springs located 

within three drainages (Lithograph Canyon, four areas along an unnamed tributary to 

Hell Canyon, and Water Draw). Perennial water is limited on this allotment and springs 

and wet areas are unique and limited resources that are currently being impacted. The 

Soil and Water Report (Gonyer 2010) includes more details on these concern areas. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Allotments 

Soils. Detrimentally impacted soils due to livestock grazing would be reduced to zero on 

all allotments as the impacts from livestock trailing and congregation areas, for example, 

recover over time. This would occur on all allotments. Ground cover would increase 

initially in the short term and potential for soil erosion would be reduced. Soil bulk 

density (compaction) characteristics would improve, and infiltration rates would increase 

(to the extent that these have been affected by domestic grazing). 

Studies comparing soil on ungrazed plots with plots of various grazing levels show 

higher infiltration of precipitation under ungrazed conditions (Holecheck et al. 1995). 

Infiltration is maximized by live vegetation and litter cover, and results in storage of the 

precipitation in the soil. Maximum vegetation and litter cover also keep erosion lower on 

ungrazed compared to grazed sites. However, the difference in infiltration is not 

statistically significant when heavy grazing is avoided (Holechek et al. 1995). Orr (1960) 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

64 

conducted a study in the Black Hills on three bluegrass meadow sites showing signs of 

heavy grazing use and soil compaction. Four years of exclusion from livestock resulted in 

an increase in infiltration and decrease in summer runoff on two of the three sites. 

A reduction in detrimental soil disturbance would occur most rapidly under alternative 1 

when compared to alternatives 2 and 3. 

Water. Allotments with the most riparian areas (French Creek and Bull Flats) would 

experience indirect, beneficial effects to water resources through a short-term, substantial 

improvement in riparian area conditions that would be sustained over time; desired 

conditions would be achieved in the long term on these allotments. All areas of concern 

on these allotments would improve over time. 

The Lithograph, Lower Beaver, and Tepee Allotments would experience gradual 

improvement in riparian area conditions as well, but these improvements are expected to 

be more gradual due to the existing level of wildlife use of these riparian areas that would 

continue with implementation of alternative 1. Wildlife use of riparian areas is more 

concentrated on these allotments because water sources are quite limited. Bull Flats and 

French Creek Allotments have more available water and wildlife impacts are spread out 

over larger areas. The Water Draw Allotment also has limited water sources and 

experiences riparian area impacts from wildlife but, because livestock have not grazed 

this allotment for several years, riparian areas are in better condition currently and would 

likely continue to improve with implementation of alternative 1. 

Livestock feces would no longer be deposited directly in streams or within upslope areas, 

so there would be fewer effects on surface water quality. As vegetative cover increases, 

filtering mechanisms would be enhanced to trap more sediment, resulting in less 

sediment delivered to streams. However, permanent removal of grazing may not 

guarantee maximum herbaceous cover because the accumulation of litter over a period of 

years may eventually retard forage production (Buckhouse 1993 [in EPA 2003]). 

There would be no direct effects on the aquatic ecosystems from sediment and bed and 

bank stability because there would be no livestock grazing with this alternative. No new 

direct damage to streambanks and channel morphology due to hoofshear would be 

expected. However, the effects of increased sediment delivery may be seen long after 

disturbed sites have revegetated (USDA Forest Service 2006) and stream channels may 

take decades to recover from severe morphologic changes. There would be a positive 

indirect effect because areas of localized steambank trampling and channel widening 

would begin to revegetate and stabilize; subsequently, sediment input would decrease and 

bed and bank stability would increase. Stream health would generally improve on all 

currently grazed perennial and intermittent streams except for some sections of streams, 

such as French Creek, that was impacted with placer mining. 

There would be no expected direct or indirect effect on aquatic ecosystems due to 

temperature and dissolved oxygen change with alternative 1 because there would not be 

any livestock grazing with this alternative. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

65 

Direct and Indirect Effects Specific to Individual Allotments 

Bull Flats Allotment 

Stream/riparian health would improve on all 1.64 miles of stream due to the removal of 

livestock grazing and use in riparian areas. The southern section of Lightning Creek 

would improve, but would remain at Robust stream health, and the northern section of 

Lightning Creek would continue to improve gradually with stream health moving from 

At-Risk towards Robust. PFC would continue to be maintained. There were no areas of 

concern on this allotment. 

French Creek Allotment 

Stream/riparian health would improve on 5.55 miles of stream currently grazed (1.07 

miles of French Creek is not grazed and the stream health on this section of stream is not 

influenced by grazing and will remain diminished because of placer mining). French 

Creek stream health would gradually improve from a Diminished rating to an At-Risk 

rating (short-term change) and over the long term, to a Robust rating. PFC would 

continue to be maintained and would achieve PFC at the site where it is currently 

Functional-At Risk with an upward trend. Ruby Creek stream health would gradually 

improve from At-Risk to Robust (long term) and would continue to be maintained at 

PFC. The four areas of concern on this allotment would improve over time with the 

removal of the impacts from livestock. Wildlife impacts on this allotment are not as great 

as the other allotments because there is more water available on this allotment; therefore, 

riparian area improvements and areas of concern improvements would occur more 

quickly when compared to the other allotments. 

Beneficial use of cold water marginal fish life and limited contact recreation affected 

from dissolved oxygen on French Creek (South Dakota 303(d) Water Body List) would 

not improve with the absence of grazing. The causes are listed as drought-related 

impacts and natural sources. Removing livestock from the French Creek Allotment 

would not affect these causes as livestock grazing does not affect drought. 

Lithograph Allotment 

There are no streams/riparian areas on the Lithograph Allotment so there are no stream 

health ratings. The eight areas of concern on this allotment would improve with the 

removal of the impacts from livestock, but this improvement is expected to be more 

gradual and realized over the long term instead of the short term due to the existing level 

of wildlife use in these areas. 

Lower Beaver Allotment 

Stream/riparian health ratings would improve on all 1.67 miles of stream. 

Stream health for the short segment of stream at Blowout Spring would remain Robust. 

Stream health at the short stream segments at Sherwood, Sled, Summit, and Thomson 

springs would slowly improve from At-Risk to Robust. The six areas of concern would 

improve with the removal of the impacts from livestock but the improvement would be 

slow due to the existing level of wildlife use in these areas. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

66 

Tepee Allotment 

Stream/riparian health ratings would improve on all 0.28 miles of stream. Stream health 

ratings on the short segments of streams associated with springs would slowly improve 

from At-Risk to Robust. The five areas of concern would improve slowly due to the 

existing level of wildlife use in these areas. 

Water Draw Allotment 

Stream/riparian health ratings would continue to improve on all 0.67 miles of stream. 

Stream health ratings on the short segments of stream would slowly improve from AtRisk to Robust and would continue at PFC. The six areas of concern would improve 

slowly due to the existing level of wildlife use in these areas. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Allotments 

Other in-progress, on-going, and planned projects such as timber harvest and off-highway 

vehicle use (table 9) have the potential to result in impacts to soil and water resources 

through localized areas of soil compaction, vegetation removal, soil disturbance, and 

stream crossings that can increase sediment delivery. Livestock would no longer impact 

soils and stream/riparian areas, but periodic soil impacts would occur over time when 

timber harvest activities are conducted. These impacts would be temporary and localized 

and would recover with time; monitoring has shown that detrimentally impacted soils in 

timber units are well within Forest Plan standards (USDA Forest Service 2009, Thomas 

2007a and Thomas 2007b). Off-highway vehicle impacts would decrease from past levels 

with the approval and implementation of a Forest travel management plan. Wildlife 

impacts to streams/riparian areas would continue. Combining the beneficial effects to soil 

and water resources from removal of livestock grazing with these other localized impacts 

would result in an overall beneficial, but minor, cumulative impact to soil and water 

resources. 

Summary 

Under alternative 1, no livestock grazing would be permitted on any of the allotments and 

current permits would be phased out over 2 years. There would be no direct effects to 

watershed condition because there would be no livestock grazing. Desired conditions are 

currently being met in some areas, but localized areas are not meeting desired conditions. 

Watershed conditions in these areas on all allotments would improve as an indirect result 

of livestock removal, but the magnitude of the change would vary by allotment; 

improvements would be more pronounced in riparian areas. Allotments with the greatest 

number of perennial and intermittent streams would experience the greatest positive 

change. Allotments would experience increases in ground cover and riparian vegetation 

over time. Springs, streams, and riparian/wetland areas would improve. Evidence of 

livestock trampling and hummocking would decrease to unobservable levels over time. 

The potential for sediment to reach streams via overland flow or unstable streambanks 

would be reduced. All of these beneficial effects would occur slowly over time and 

would likely take decades to reach their full potential. 

Table 11 summarizes the effects to soil and water from implementation of alternative 1. 

Implementation of alternative 1 would be consistent with the Forest Plan. All Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines relating to soil and water resources would be met. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

67 

Alternative 2 – Current Management 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Allotments 

Numerous studies have shown that livestock grazing results in adverse impacts to soil 

and water resources, and there is little evidence to support beneficial effects (Clary and 

Webster 1989). Direct and indirect effects from livestock grazing to watershed resources 

would occur on all allotments, except Water Draw, which would continue to be managed 

as a vacant allotment. Because these allotments would continue to be managed as they 

have been over the last 3 to 5 years, watershed conditions would generally remain 

unchanged; areas that are in good condition now would remain so and areas not currently 

meeting desired conditions would remain so or would decline over time. Because longterm monitoring at established upland benchmarks on all allotments are indicating stable 

or improving trends in rangeland condition, desired conditions in many areas are 

currently being met; this would continue with implementation of alternative 2. Localized 

areas, however, are experiencing effects, particularly riparian areas, and these impacts 

would also continue. The potential for sediment to reach streams via overland flow or 

from unstable streambanks would remain low and unchanged, except in localized areas. 

Localized impacts from livestock grazing would be greater on the French Creek 

Allotment than on the Lithograph, Lower Beaver, and Tepee Allotments, due to the 

greater amount of streams and riparian/wetland areas. Riparian stubble height would not 

be an indicator as to when to move livestock. Evidence of trampling and hummocking 

from livestock grazing would remain unchanged. Ground cover would remain 

unchanged. 

Soils. Soil erosion is not currently an issue in the project area. Alternative 2 would 

maintain upland vegetation communities and soil resource conditions by adhering to 

utilization standards for the uplands, as prescribed in the Forest Plan. Soil erosion would 

continue to be minimal on all allotments. 

Soil productivity could be reduced due to soil compaction from concentrated livestock 

grazing. Soils most susceptible to soil compaction are primarily forested areas and not 

primary grazing land, reducing the potential for this effect to be widespread. Most any 

soil could be compacted under the right conditions, particularly where animals tend to 

congregate (livestock trails, watering sites, salt licks, and shaded areas) during certain 

moisture conditions. Generally, these are small isolated areas already receiving impacts, 

and these areas are less than 15 percent of any of the allotments, as prescribed in the 

Forest Plan. 

Detrimentally impacted soils due to livestock grazing would remain at their current levels 

due to implementation of alternative 2, with one exception: these acres would be reduced 

to zero on the Water Draw Allotment because livestock would not be grazed (table 11). 

Water. In general, livestock grazing across the Forest has resulted in localized impacts to 

riparian areas (water quality, stream bank vegetation and stability, channel morphology, 

and sediment input, USDA Forest Service 2005a). While current management on these 

six allotments has resulted in stable or improving trends in many areas, particularly in the 

uplands, continuing current management under alternative 2 would not promote increased 

bank stability adjacent to aquatic habitats in all areas and would not maintain filtering 

function of riparian areas adjacent to water in all areas; these Forest Plan guidelines 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

68 

(guidelines 2505 and 2506) would not be met in all areas. Livestock can increase 

sediment delivery to streams through crossing streams and trampling stream banks while 

looking for water and forage, but this sediment generation is usually minimal. However, 

if animals spend a lot of time in the same area of the stream, stream banks could become 

unstable. This could cause failure of the stream banks with large amounts of sediment 

being generated. Stream bank instability is expected to increase over time in localized 

areas where livestock impacts are already occurring. 

Livestock feces would be deposited directly in streams and upland areas, with potential 

for effects to water quality. Livestock are a source of fecal indicator bacteria in streams. 

Two factors that affect grazing impacts on bacterial water quality are livestock proximity 

and access to water and livestock density. Nonpoint sources closer to the water body 

have a greater chance to pollute the water than sources farther away. A large amount of 

livestock concentrated around the stream increase the chance of direct deposition of 

livestock waste into the water body. Managing the allotment to maintain ground cover 

across the area to reduce runoff would reduce fecal indicator bacteria from grazing lands. 

This is done with monitoring the riparian areas for stubble height and the uplands for 

utilization standards. Meeting the standards would minimize the amount of fecal 

indicator bacteria reaching the streams (Carlson 2010). 

With adequate vegetative cover, filtering mechanisms would be sufficient to trap 

sediment and nutrients before reaching drainage systems. It is expected that these effects 

would be minimal with implementation of alternative 2. Beneficial uses of the streams 

and water quality standards would continue to be met with implementation of alternative 

2. 

Implementation of alternative 2 would not result in improvements in areas of concern or 

streams/riparian areas that are currently experiencing detrimental impacts from livestock 

grazing. Current conditions would continue and in many areas this would result in static 

stream health ratings; areas currently At-Risk or Diminished would likely remain so, just 

as those areas in Robust condition would remain so. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Specific to Individual Allotments 

Bull Flats Allotment 

Stream/riparian health would remain in its current condition on all 1.64 miles of stream 

with implementation of alternative 2 and continued livestock use. Because these riparian 

areas along Lightning Creek are in good condition (Robust rating on the southern section 

and at PFC) or improving (At-Risk on the northern section but has been improving over 

time and is at PFC), it is possible that trends could continue upward and additional 

improvements could result over the long term. In the short term, stream health ratings 

would remain unchanged and PFC would continue to be maintained. 

French Creek Allotment 

Stream/riparian health would not improve on the 5.55 miles of stream currently grazed 

(1.07 miles of French Creek is not grazed and the stream health on this section of stream 

is not influenced by grazing) because livestock would continue to impact streams. Stream 

health on French Creek would remain at a Diminished rating. Ruby Creek stream health 

would remain at an At-Risk rating. PFC would continue to be achieved on French Creek 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

69 

and Ruby Creek and would maintain the current upward trend on French Creek. 

Conditions at two of the four areas of concern (North Pole Spring and Upper French 

Creek fen; see table 9) would improve because plans are currently in-progress to exclude 

livestock from these areas. The two other areas of concern on this allotment would not 

improve because of continued livestock impacts at current levels. 

Lithograph Allotment 

There are no streams/riparian areas on the Lithograph Allotment, so there are no stream 

health ratings on this allotment. Eight areas of concern on this allotment would not 

improve over time because of continued livestock and wildlife impacts at current levels. 

Lower Beaver Allotment 

Stream/riparian health would not improve on most of the 1.67 miles of stream because 

livestock and wildlife would continue to impact streams. Stream health for the short 

segment of stream at Blowout Spring would remain Robust. Four areas of concern 

(Sherwood Spring, Sled Spring, Summit Spring, and Thomson Canyon) would gradually 

improve from At-Risk to Robust because of the source water protection measures 

recently implemented (see table 9). The other three areas of concern on this allotment 

would not improve over time because of continued impact at the current levels. 

Tepee Allotment 

Stream/riparian health would not improve on any of the 0.28 miles of stream because 

livestock and wildlife would continue to impact these areas. Stream health on the short 

segments of streams at springs would remain At-Risk. All five areas of concern would 

not improve over time because of continued impact at the current levels. 

Water Draw Allotment 

Because the Water Draw Allotment would remain vacant and would not be grazed under 

alternative 2, direct/indirect impacts to water resources are the same as those for 

alternative 1. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Allotments 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in continued short- and long-term 

direct/indirect effects to soil and water resources as described above. Adding these effects 

to the direct/indirect effects from other in-progress, on-going, and planned projects on 

these allotments such as timber harvest and off-highway vehicle use (table 9) has the 

potential to result in cumulative impacts to soil and water resources through localized 

areas of soil compaction, vegetation removal, soil disturbance, and stream crossings that 

can increase sediment delivery. Livestock would continue to impact soils and 

stream/riparian areas; these same drainage systems could also be impacted during timber 

harvest activities. Soil disturbance and compaction from these activities would be 

temporary and localized and would recover with time; monitoring has shown that 

detrimentally impacted soils in timber units are well within Forest Plan standards (USDA 

Forest Service 2009, Thomas 2007a and Thomas 2007b). Off-highway vehicle impacts 

would decrease from past levels with the approval and implementation of a Forest travel 

management plan. Wildlife impacts to streams/riparian areas would continue. 

Combining these localized effects from continued livestock grazing with these other 

localized effects would result in an overall minor cumulative impact to soil and water 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

70 

resources, minimized through adherence to project-specific design criteria and Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines. 

Summary 

Under alternative 2, livestock grazing would be permitted on the Bull Flats, French 

Creek, Lithograph, Lower Beaver, and Tepee Allotments and would continue at current 

levels. Livestock would not be permitted on the Water Draw Allotment and the allotment 

would remain vacant. Impacts to soil and water resources on the allotment would be the 

same as those described for alternative 1. 

Because these allotments would continue to be managed as they have been over the last 

few years, watershed conditions would generally remain unchanged; areas that are in 

good condition now would remain so and areas that are not currently meeting desired 

conditions would remain so or would decline over time. Because long-term monitoring at 

established upland benchmarks on all allotments are indicating stable or improving trends 

in rangeland condition, desired conditions in many areas are currently being met and this 

would continue with implementation of alternative 2. Localized areas, however, are 

experiencing effects, particularly in riparian areas, and these impacts would continue. 

Table 11 summarizes the effects to soil and water from implementation of alternative 2. 

Implementation of alternative 2 would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines for soil resources but would not meet all Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

for water resources in all areas; Forest Plan Standard 2505 would not be met in all areas 

at all times because current annual operating instructions do not prescribe riparian 

residual levels. Forest Plan Standard 1301 would not be met because stream health 

would not improve in all areas. 

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Allotments 

Watershed resources would be affected on all allotments with implementation of 

alternative 3. Because improved management would be implemented where needed, 

watershed conditions would improve over time; proposed range improvement projects 

and additional monitoring would occur. Some improvements would exclude livestock 

from some areas. Monitoring trigger points would be established for short-term 

monitoring sites (appendix B) so that livestock would be moved based on riparian stubble 

height and upland vegetation utilization; this would result in improved riparian and 

upland conditions over the current condition. Long-term monitoring of riparian areas 

would determine if existing conditions are moving toward desired conditions; adaptive 

management options (table 4) would be implemented when necessary. Because of these 

proposed actions, springs, streams, and riparian areas would improve overtime. Evidence 

of trampling and hummocking from livestock grazing would decrease. Ground cover 

would improve. The potential for sediment to reach streams via overland flow or from 

unstable streambanks would decrease. Stream bank stability would improve adjacent to 

aquatic habitats and maintain filtering function of riparian areas adjacent to water due to 

the implementation of proposed range improvements, enhanced monitoring, 

establishment of trigger points, and implementation of adaptive management options 

when needed. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

71 

Soil erosion is not currently an issue on any of the allotments and this is not expected to 

change with implementation of alternative 3. Detrimentally impacted soils due to 

livestock grazing would increase slightly on all allotments (table 11) due to 

implementation of proposed improvements on each allotment, as discussed for each 

allotment below. Soil compaction would occur in these areas and in existing congregation 

areas such as shading and watering sites. Acres of soils detrimentally impacted by 

livestock would increase from 286 acres under the existing condition to 316 acres under 

alternative 3. However, this would still be well within acceptable thresholds for 

detrimentally impacted soils, as defined in the Forest Plan. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Specific to Individual Allotments 

Bull Flats Allotment 

The Bull Flats Allotment would be managed as previously described for alternative 2; no 

change in permitted numbers or seasons of use is proposed and no range improvements 

are proposed. The only difference between alternative 2 and 3 is in the application of 

adaptive management and enhanced monitoring under alternative 3. Therefore, impacts to 

soil and water resources would essentially be the same as those described for alternative 

2; however, the ability to implement adaptive management options if issues arise would 

provide for enhanced protection of soil and water resources and a faster rate of 

improvement where existing conditions are not currently meeting desired conditions. 

French Creek Allotment 

Alternative 3 proposed actions for French Creek are designed to improve resource 

conditions. However, because of the implementation of new range improvements (e.g., 

stock tanks and dugouts) which would disturb and compact soils and/or create new 

livestock congregation areas, detrimentally impacted soils would increase by 

approximately 20 acres to a total of 49 acres. This would still be less than 1 percent of the 

allotment. 

Stream/riparian health would improve on the 5.55 miles of stream available to grazing. 

French Creek stream would gradually improve from Diminished to At-Risk and 

eventually to Robust, but would take longer to improve than alternative 1. Ruby Creek 

stream health would also gradually improve and would move from At-Risk to Robust 

over the long term. PFC would continue to be achieved on French Creek and Ruby Creek 

and would maintain the current upward trend at one site on French Creek. Three of the 

four areas of concern (North Pole Spring, North Pole Spring 2, and Upper French Creek 

Fen) would improve over time with the reduced AMs and the implementation of 

proposed improvements. 

Of the 5.55 miles of stream available to livestock, grazing would be removed from 0.56 

miles of French Creek when the Pope Spring Unit is split into two units. A water gap of 

0.10 miles on French Creek would be combined with the rest of French Creek (2.59 

miles) when water is developed on the North Pole Unit. This would result in substantial 

improvement in riparian conditions in this area. 

Beneficial uses on French Creek (cold water marginal fish life and limited contact 

recreation, as defined in South Dakota 303(d) Water Body List) would not be affected by 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

72 

livestock grazing; French Creek is not meeting these beneficial uses due to droughtrelated impacts and other natural sources, not livestock grazing. 

Lithograph Allotment 

Alternative 3 proposed actions for Lithograph are designed to improve resource 

conditions. However, because of the implementation of new range improvements (e.g., 

stock tanks) which would disturb and compact soils and/or create new livestock 

congregation areas, detrimentally impacted soils would increase by approximately 1 acre 

to a total of 54 acres. This would still be less than one percent of the allotment. 

There are no streams/riparian areas on the Lithograph Allotment so there are no stream 

health ratings on this allotment. Two of the eight areas of concern on this allotment 

(Piper Spring and Chipmunk Spring) would improve with implementation of proposed 

source water protections. The other six areas of concern would continue to be impacted 

and not improve over time because of continued impact at the current levels; there are no 

proposed actions at these sites. 

Lower Beaver Allotment 

Alternative 3 proposed actions for Lower Beaver are designed to improve resource 

conditions. However, because of the implementation of new range improvements (e.g., 

stock tanks) which would disturb and compact soils and/or create new livestock 

congregation areas, detrimentally impacted soils would increase by approximately 1 acre 

to a total of 66 acres. This would still be less than 1 percent of the allotment. 

Stream/riparian health would improve on 1.67 miles of stream because riparian stubble 

height standards would be applied to this allotment. Stream health for the short segment 

of stream at Blowout Spring would remain Robust. Four areas of concern (Sherwood 

Spring, Sled Spring, Summit Spring, and Thomson Canyon) would gradually improve 

from At-Risk to Robust because water protection measures have recently been 

implemented in these areas. The other three areas of concern would continue to be 

impacted with continued livestock grazing; no specific actions are proposed at these sites. 

Tepee Allotment 

Alternative 3 proposed actions for Tepee are designed to improve resource conditions. 

However, because of the implementation of new range improvements (e.g., stock tanks 

and spring development) which would disturb and compact soils and/or create new 

livestock congregation areas, detrimentally impacted soils would increase by 

approximately 2 acres to a total of 87 acres. This would still be less than 1 percent of the 

allotment. 

Stream/riparian health would improve on some of the 0.28 miles of stream because 

source water protection would be implemented. The stream health on the short segments 

of streams at springs at two sites would improve from At-Risk to Robust. The other three 

areas would remain at At-Risk. Of the five areas of concern on this allotment, two 

(Deadhorse Spring and Blacktail Spring) would improve over time because of the 

exclusion of livestock. The other three areas of concern would continue to be impacted 

with continued livestock grazing; no specific actions are proposed at these sites. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

73 

Water Draw Allotment 

With implementation of proposed range improvements, detrimentally impacted soils 

would increase from 24 acres to 30 acres due to creation of additional disturbed areas 

with the implementation of new range improvements. This would still be less than one 

percent of the allotment. 

Stream/riparian health would improve on some of the 0.67 miles of stream because of the 

source water protection measures that are planned. The stream health on the short 

segments of stream that are proposed for fencing would improve and would move toward 

a Robust rating while the sections not protected would remain At-Risk. PFC would 

continue to be maintained. The source areas for the six (6) areas of concern would be 

protected from livestock. 

Adaptive Management. Alternative 3 incorporates adaptive management options into the 

list of possible actions that could be implemented. Adaptive management that follows 

Forest Plan standards, watershed conservation practices and design criteria and responds 

to the appropriate trigger points would have beneficial effects to soil and water resources 

when compared to implementation of alternative 2. Research seems to indicate that the 

ability to control the location and duration of grazing and the degree of forage utilization 

is more important than the use of any particular grazing system (Clary and Webster, 

1989); for these reasons, providing the flexibility to change management quickly when 

intended results are not achieved provides enhanced success in meeting project 

objectives. Appendix E summarizes the potential direct/indirect and cumulative effects 

from implementation of any one or group of possible adaptive management options. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Allotments 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in short- and long-term direct/indirect 

effects to soil and water resources as described above. Adding these effects to the 

direct/indirect effects from other in-progress, on-going, and planned projects on these 

allotments, such as timber harvest and off-highway vehicle use (table 9) has the potential 

to result in cumulative impacts to soil and water resources through localized areas of soil 

compaction, vegetation removal and soil disturbance, and stream crossings that can 

increase sediment delivery. Livestock would continue to impact soils and stream/riparian 

areas, but these effects would be less than those from alternative 2; these same drainage 

systems could also be impacted during timber harvest activities. Soil disturbance and 

compaction from these activities would be temporary and localized and would recover 

with time; monitoring has shown that detrimentally impacted soils in timber units are 

well within Forest Plan standards (USDA Forest Service 2009). Off-highway vehicle 

impacts would decrease from past levels with the approval and implementation of a 

Forest travel management plan. Wildlife impacts to streams/riparian areas would 

continue. Combining the localized effects to soil and water resources from livestock 

grazing under alternative 3 with these other localized impacts would result in an overall 

minor cumulative impact to soil and water resources. The impacts would be minimized 

through adherence to project-specific design criteria and Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

74 

Summary 

Under alternative 3, livestock grazing would be permitted on all allotments. Impacts to 

soil and water resource conditions on all allotments would occur, but these effects would 

be less than those for alternative 2 due to improved livestock management. The only 

exception is for the Water Draw Allotment where livestock use would not occur under 

alternatives 1 and 2, but would occur under alternative 3. 

For soils, this alternative would be consistent with the Forest Plan. All standards and 

guidelines relating to soil would be met, particularly Forest Plan Standard 1103 which 

states no more than 15 percent of any land unit can be in a detrimentally impacted state, 

because all allotments would have less than 1 percent in a detrimentally impacted state. 

Implementation of alternative 3 would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines for both soil and water resources. 

Table 11 summarizes the direct/indirect effects from alternatives 1, 2, and 3 using the 

measurable indicators. Of all the alternatives, alternative 1 would result in the fewest 

impacts to soil and water resources and would result in no impacts over the long term to 

soil and water resources with the removal of livestock grazing. Alternative 3 would result 

in improved livestock management when compared to alternative 2 and would minimize 

long-term impacts, particularly those related to riparian/stream conditions. Alternative 3 

would move allotments toward desired conditions at a faster rate than alternative 2 and 

would be more successful in meeting Forest Plan standards and guidelines when 

compared to alternative 2. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Table 11. Comparison of alternatives by soil and water measurement indicators 

Allotment Acres of Detrimentally Impacted Soils Miles of Improved Stream/Riparian Health Number of Impro

Existing 

Condition Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Existing 

Condition Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 

Existing 

Condition Alt 1 

Bull Flats 30 0 30 30 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 0 NA French Creek 29 0 29 49 6.62 5.55 0 5.55 4 4 Lithograph 53 0 53 54 0 NA NA NA 8 8 Lower Beaver 65 0 65 66 1.67 1.67 0 1.67 6 6 Tepee 85 0 85 87 0.28 0.28 0 0.28 5 5 Water Draw 24 0 0 30 0.67 0.67 0 0.67 6 6 

Total 286 0 262 316 10.88 9.81 

(90%) 

1.64 (15%) 

9.81 

(90%) 

29 29 

(100%) 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

76 

 

Rangelands _____________________________________ 

Methodology 

The most recent field surveys to evaluate rangeland conditions within the project area 

were conducted between 2001 and 2009 by Black Hills National Forest employees. 

These data include cover frequency monitoring using the cover frequency index method. 

The 2008 and 2009 data were compared to historical data to determine any substantial 

shifts in plant species composition or changes in soil health (stability, condition, and litter 

components). These data were then compiled and compared to NRCS classifications 

(potential vegetation communities based on soil type). Determination of desired condition 

was then based on what would be attainable. Desired conditions may include 

“naturalized” species such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and timothy (Phleum 

pratense) because they have grown there for many years and are established within the 

community. The degree of similarity between existing and desired plant communities 

gives an estimate of vegetation management status. With a similarity coefficient score of 

65 percent or greater, the range condition is considered satisfactory (USDA Forest 

Service 1996c). 

In 2008 and 2009, ocular plant composition data were collected by soil map unit on each 

allotment to determine species composition. These data were collected following the 

protocols established in the Rocky Mountain Region Rangeland Analysis and 

Management Training Guide (USDA Forest Service 1996). 

Trend is determined where possible by comparing historical records (e.g., transects data, 

inspection records, and photographs) with current conditions to determine if conditions 

have generally improved, declined, or stayed the same (stable). 

Streams/riparian areas were evaluated using “Proper Functioning Condition” (PFC) 

surveys and baseline monitoring data was collected using Multiple Indicator Monitoring 

(MIM) in 2008 on Bull Flats, French Creek, and Water Draw Allotments. 

Livestock grazing can result in short- and long-term changes in rangeland vegetation 

(vegetation composition and structure) and can impact the quality of livestock forage 

(both beneficially and adversely). Proposed improvements can alter livestock movement 

patterns and influence distribution. The magnitude of the influence of grazing depends on 

the timing, frequency, and intensity of use, and the associated management practices, 

including the level of permittee interest and involvement. 

In order to compare the alternatives, the following measureable indicators have been 

developed: 

 Changes in rangeland and riparian conditions and trends (based on benchmark 

and key area monitoring) 

 Changes in noxious weed introduction and spread 

Suitable and capable rangelands and stocking levels for each allotment are described in 

the next section. The description of alternative 2 in chapter 2 provides a summary of 

current management on each allotment. The Rangeland Vegetation Report (Bindel 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

77 

2010a) provides additional detail on historic conditions, monitoring results, and current 

conditions for each allotment. 

Affected Environment 

Rangeland vegetation is defined in the Region 2 Rangeland Analysis and Management 

Training Guide (RAMTG) (USDA Forest Service 1996) as land producing or capable of 

producing native forage for grazing and browsing animals, and lands that have been 

revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a forage cover that is managed like native 

vegetation. Rangeland vegetation includes all grasslands, forblands, shrublands, and 

those forested lands that can support an understory of herbaceous or shrubby vegetation 

that provides forage for grazing or browsing animals. 

Community Types. These six allotments are predominately Ponderosa Pine/Western 

Wheatgrass Woodland community type, grading to Ponderosa Pine/Common Juniper 

Woodlands on the northwestern portion. Many of these Ponderosa Pine/Common Juniper 

communities have a very strong graminoid component, which according to Marriott and 

Faber-Langendoen (2000) is not typical for this community type. In the drier, more 

southern portions of the project area the ponderosa pine community types are 

accompanied by Ponderosa Pine/Rocky Mountain Juniper Woodlands and Rocky 

Mountain Juniper/Little-Seed Ricegrass Woodland community types (Marriott and FaberLangendoen 2000).

Mountain Mahogany/Side-Oats Shrubland (Marriott and Faber-Langendoen 2000) makes 

up approximately 10 percent of the Lower Beaver Allotment and is scattered along the 

western edge of the Tepee Allotment and through the central portion of the Lithograph 

Allotment. 

The woodlands/shrublands described above are classified as warm slope, cool slope, or 

shallow ridge grazable woodlands by the Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS), based on soil type. Grazable woodlands are those forested sites that produce 

enough of an understory to provide forage for grazing animals. The NRCS describes the 

warm slope/cool slope/shallow ridge grazable woodlands as sites with an overstory of 

ponderosa pine with little bluestem, big bluestem, sideoats grama, sedges, and 

bluegrasses in the understory. 

Two large, stand-replacing fires have occurred within the project area within the past 9 

years. As a result, 63 percent of the grazable woodlands in the Water Draw Allotment, 79 

percent in the Tepee Allotment, 25 percent in the Lithograph Allotment, and 41 percent 

in the Lower Beaver Allotment have been substantially altered. While classified as 

forested sites according to soil, these sites are now dominated by shrubs, forbs (often 

weedy species), graminoids, and standing dead ponderosa pine. These areas are littered 

with down woody debris and those that did not have a strong graminoid component prefire have patchy areas of bare soil. Shrubs present include dogbane, western snowberry, 

serviceberry, wild rose and russet buffaloberry. 

White Spruce Alluvial Black Hills Forest (Marriott and Faber-Langendoen 2000) is 

present along French Creek. This alluvial bottom and the north facing white spruce 

slopes have the potential of providing habitat for Region 2 sensitive species and Black 

Hills National Forest plant species of local concern, although no individuals were found 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

78 

during botanical surveys (see Botany section later in this chapter). Pockets of quaking 

aspen and paper birch are minor components throughout this portion of the project area. 

Soil types that support rangeland sites (as opposed to supporting forests) are a minority in 

these six allotments. The Lithograph Allotment has the greatest amount of rangeland 

with 13 percent of the allotment being classified as either shallow or silty range sites. 

These sites are dominated by native perennial graminoids such as western wheatgrass, 

needle-and-thread, prairie junegrass, and threadleaf sedge. Despite the large fires in the 

recent past, many of these sites are experiencing pine encroachment. These non-forested 

sites with soils derived from limestone parent material are believed to be potential habitat 

for the R2 sensitive species prairie moonwort and narrowleaf grapefern and occur on the 

Lower Beaver and Tepee Allotments. 

Ocular plant composition studies were conducted across the project area to determine an 

estimate of understory species composition. The data indicate native graminoids are a 

major component of the understory across all soils types, although many of the overflow 

range sites support a large amount of introduced perennial grasses (Kentucky bluegrass, 

smooth brome, and timothy) and/or the shrub western snowberry. Details of species 

composition for each allotment are included in the Botany Report (Englebert 2010) and 

the Rangeland Vegetation Report (Bindel 2010a). 

The community composition of rangeland vegetation in the project area has been altered 

from pre-settlement conditions by several factors such as suppression of fire and past 

agricultural practices. Some of the open parklands (grass upland) within the project area 

were plowed during the resettlement and homestead era of the 1930s and 1940s. These 

areas were taken out of crop or hay production and allowed to return to native grasses. 

Few areas were seeded to crested wheatgrass and smooth brome in later years. 

The majority of grazing available on the allotments occurs on woodland and upland sites. 

Grazable woodlands are those forested sites that produce enough of an understory to 

provide forage for grazing animals. However, woodland and uplands may be considered 

unsuitable for grazing based on low production, steepness of slope, inaccessible areas due 

to topography, or limited access to water. 

Suitable and Capable Rangelands. Suitable rangelands are those rangelands where 

there is no Forest Plan or other binding decision to preclude the permitting of livestock 

grazing. Management area designations in the project area include those in Table 1. All 

of the Management Areas in the project area allow livestock grazing. Examples of areas 

within these allotments that are not suitable for grazing include certain administrative 

sites, mineral production areas, exclosures, and areas closed to grazing by decision. 

Range capability is a tool used at the project level to identify where forage is available 

and how management can affect use of that forage. Capability and suitability were 

determined for each allotment using the “Regional Desk Guide for Determination of 

Rangeland Suitability for Livestock Grazing” (USDA Forest Service 2004) and are 

summarized in the Rangeland Vegetation Report (Bindel 2010a). 

Capable acres for this analysis area were reviewed using the latest GIS data available. 

Factors such as tree canopy cover, vegetative type and production, slope and aspect are 

used, in combination with previous actual use adjustments over the years on each 

allotment, to determine carrying capacity. However, range capability is a modeling tool 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

79 

only and may not portray an accurate assessment of on the ground conditions. For 

example, grass production varies based on many factors that are not easily modeled such 

as local variations in soil type, precipitation, microsites, plant species, etc. In the absence 

of other information, rangeland inventories done at one point in time are sometimes used 

to provide general estimates of potential stocking rates of management units. Such 

inventories have been done in the past on some of the allotments within the project area. 

Stocking Rates. Proper stocking rates are site-specific and thus are highly variable. Key 

factors influencing proper stocking on any given parcel of land include, but are not 

limited to: permittee management knowledge and effectiveness, topography, water 

availability, plant communities and their distribution, aspect, slope, forage palatability, 

current year’s precipitation and seasonal distribution, fire (both wild and prescribed), 

drought, wildlife effects, recreational activities, livestock age and size, and so forth. For 

any given allotment, the proper stocking rates can and will vary significantly through 

time depending on these types of variables. Generally, we define the range or variability 

for proper stocking rates, based on capability/suitability determinations and the other 

factors mentioned above, but it is nearly impossible to pinpoint one “proper stocking 

rate”. In general, an initial stocking rate may be set but through inventories and 

monitoring of rangeland conditions, the stocking rate may be adjusted. Additionally, 

stocking rates are not considered as static; their determined estimate should be 

periodically considered as part of range management. 

The Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (RAMTG) states when 

resource conditions on some allotments are not meeting or moving towards Forest Plan 

objectives, rangeland managers should re-evaluate grazing capacity, that is, the amount of 

livestock use that can be allowed while meeting basic resource needs and associated 

objectives. Studies to firm up grazing capacity estimates should be conducted for at least 

a full rotation on rest or deferred systems, and scheduled to allow for vegetative 

production fluctuations due to climatic conditions. Such estimates are not to be 

considered static; they should be periodically reviewed and adjusted to bring them in line 

with changing conditions. Stocking rates should allow a safety margin to provide for low 

forage producing years, and trend towards objectives is another consideration. Such 

inventories have been done in the past on the Bull Flats, Lithograph, Lower Beaver and 

Tepee Allotments. Since that time, the stocking rates have been adjusted according to the 

resource conditions as described above. 

 Stocking rates should also be based upon more than one-point-in-time rangeland 

inventories. Additional adjustments are often needed to account for distance to water, 

livestock behavior, conifer encroachment or conifer removal (due to timber harvest and 

fire), and topography. For example, there may be a large meadow with high productivity 

but due to steep access and long distance to water livestock do not utilize it. Overall, 

annual monitoring data, long-term trend data as well as field site visits were used to 

confirm whether current stocking rates are meeting the management objectives and 

desired conditions for these allotments as discussed below. 

Reviews of historic inventories, long-term monitoring, current monitoring, annual 

monitoring data, and field visits were conducted on the allotments within the project area. 

A generalized carrying capacity and stocking rate was calculated for the Water Draw 

Allotment, for purposes of this project, because the allotment has not been used for 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

80 

several years. For the Bull Flats, Lithograph, Lower Beaver and Tepee Allotments, 

management objectives and desired conditions are being met or are moving toward 

desired conditions within the project area and further refinement of stocking rates at this 

time is therefore unwarranted. For the French Creek Allotment, due to resource needs, a 

reduction in the stocking rate has been proposed. Table 12 displays suitable and capable 

rangelands, current stocking rates (Alternative 2, Current Management) and stocking 

rates proposed under Alternative 3, Proposed Action. 

Bull Flats Allotment 

The Bull Flats Allotment is described generally in chapter 1 and in the description of 

“Alternative 2 – Current Management” in chapter 2. Both the Rangeland Vegetation and 

the Botany Report include common native and non-native grasses and forbs present on 

the allotment as well as more detail on vegetation types (Bindel 2010a and Englebert 

2010). The allotment is characterized by rolling topography and steep canyon slopes 

covered with patches of thick timber and canyon bottoms of grass. It is predominately a 

Ponderosa Pine/Western Wheatgrass Woodland community type (Marriott and FaberLangendoen 2000). There are several natural meadows, but they are experiencing pine 

encroachment. The King Tut Unit has the most limited productivity of all the units. The 

large open meadows are in Layton Canyon, Lightning Creek, and in an area around Y-4 

Well. Other very small meadows or openings are scattered throughout the allotment. 

Primary range sites make up only 6 percent of the allotment; 77 percent is grazable 

woodland and 16 percent is rock outcrop. 

The woodlands present in the Bull Flats Allotment are classified by the NRCS as warm 

slope, cool slope, shallow ridge, rocky sideslope, or silty footslope grazable woodlands, 

based on soil type. 

Table 12. Suitable and capable acres and stocking rates per allotment 

Allotment 

Capable 

Acres 

Suitable 

Acres 

Alternative 1 

Stocking Rate 

(AMs) 

Alternative 2 

Stocking Rate 

(AMs) 

Alternative 3 

Stocking Rate 

(AMs) 

Bull Flats 7,284 4,983 0 374 374 

French 

Creek 

7,292 5,744 0 728 529 

Lithograph 12,560 11,413 0 1,364 1,364 

Lower 

Beaver 

22,206 21,406 0 2,017 2,017 

Tepee 22,104 21,666 0 1,920 1,920 

Water Draw 6,881 5,872 0 0 252 

Overall, rangeland health/condition is good and the trend in rangeland condition is 

upward, based on cover frequency studies and professional judgment. There are 7,284 

acres capable of grazing and 4,983 acres suitable for grazing (table 12) (Bindel 2010a 

provides more detail on this determination). 

Noxious weeds that are a concern within the allotment are leafy spurge (Euphorbia 

esula), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare). 

Widespread patches of leafy spurge can be found along Layton Canyon with a few 

occurrences in Griffiths Canyon, along US Highway 16, and along FS Roads 273 and 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

81 

307. Herbicide treatments and biological control releases have been completed at these 

sites in addition to areas within the Michaud, Comanche, and Henderson timber sales. 

French Creek Allotment 

The French Creek Allotment is described generally in chapter 1 and in the description of 

“Alternative 2 – Current Management” in chapter 2. Both the Rangeland Vegetation and 

the Botany Reports include common native and non-native grasses and forbs present on 

the allotment, as well as more detail on vegetation types (Bindel 2010a and Englebert 

2010). The allotment is characterized by generally rolling terrain with wooded slopes and 

bluegrass stringer bottoms. The dominant woodland community type is Ponderosa 

Pine/Western Wheatgrass (Marriott and Faber-Langendoen 2000). French Creek, Ruby 

Creek, and Crow Creek are three perennial water sources that flow through this 

allotment. Woodlands are classified by the NRCS as warm slope, cool slope, shallow 

ridge, or silty footslope grazable woodlands, based on soil type. 

Only a small percentage of the French Creek Allotment is classified as rangeland (5 

percent) and it supports a sparse overstory of ponderosa pine, with an understory that is a 

mix of cool season and warm season grasses. 89 percent of the allotment is grazable 

woodland and 6 six percent is rock outcrop. 

Overall rangeland health/condition is good and trend in rangeland condition is upward, 

based on cover frequency studies and professional judgment. There are 7,292 acres 

capable of grazing and 5,744 acres suitable for grazing (table 12) (Bindel 2010a provides 

more detail). 

Leafy spurge and Canada thistle are the dominant noxious weed species in the allotment. 

Common tansy is a species of concern. Areas within the allotment that have been the 

focal point of weed treatment include French Creek and areas within active and recently 

active timber sales. 

Lithograph Allotment 

The Lithograph Allotment is described generally in chapter 1 and in the description of 

“Alternative 2 – Current Management” in chapter 2. Both the Rangeland Vegetation and 

the Botany Reports include common native and non-native grasses and forbs present on 

the allotment as well as more detail on vegetation types (Bindel 2010a and Englebert 

2010). The allotment is characterized by rolling topography and steep canyon slopes 

covered with patches of thick timber and canyon bottoms of grass. The dominant tree 

species on the allotment is ponderosa pine. There are several natural meadows, but pine is 

encroaching. Other very small meadows or openings are scattered throughout the 

allotment. This allotment has the greatest amount (18 percent) of rangeland out of the six 

allotments within the project area. 60 percent of the allotment is classified as grazable 

woodland; 22 percent is rock outcrop. 

The woodlands present in the Lithograph Allotment are classified by the NRCS as warm 

slope, cool slope, and shallow ridge, based on soil type. Mountain Mahogany/Side-Oats 

(Cercocarpus montanus/Bouteloua curtipendula) Shrubland (Marriott and FaberLangendoen 2000) is present in limited quantity in the central portion of the Lithograph 

Allotment. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

82 

Overall rangeland health/condition is good and the trend in rangeland condition is stable, 

based on cover frequency studies and professional judgment. There are 12,560 acres 

capable of grazing and 11,413 acres suitable for grazing (table 12) (Bindel 2010a 

provides more detail). 

The major weed-related concerns for the Lithograph Allotment come from seven patches 

of spotted knapweed found along the Mann Road (FS Road 270.1) and along the Schenk 

Turn Off (FS Road 270.1A). Other areas of concern are along the US Highway 16 

corridor and the eastern boundary of the allotment in the Jasper Fire Area. Weed species 

observed on the allotment include Canada thistle, hound’s tongue, musk thistle, common 

mullein, black henbane, yellow toadflax, leafy spurge and caragana. 

Lower Beaver Allotment 

The Lower Beaver Allotment is described generally in chapter 1 and in the description of 

“Alternative 2 – Current Management” in chapter 2. Both the Rangeland Vegetation and 

the Botany Reports include common native and non-native grasses and forbs present on 

the allotment as well as more detail on vegetation types (Bindel 2010a and Englebert 

2010). The allotment is characterized by rolling topography and steep canyon slopes 

covered with patches of thick timber and canyon bottoms of grass. There are several 

natural meadows, but pine is encroaching. Other very small meadows or openings are 

scattered throughout the allotment. Only 6 percent of the allotment is classified as 

rangeland; 65 percent is grazable woodland; 29 percent is rock outcrop. 

The woodlands present in the Lower Beaver Allotment are classified by the NRCS as 

warm slope, cool slope, shallow ridge, high woodland, woodland, or silty footslope 

grazable woodlands, based on soil type. 

Overall rangeland health/condition is good and the trend in rangeland condition is 

upward, based on cover frequency studies and professional judgment. There are 22,206 

acres capable of grazing and 21,406 acres suitable for grazing (table 12) (Bindel 2010a 

provides more detail). 

The most recent formal weed inventory was done in 2004 after the Jasper Fire. Large 

amounts of Canada thistle and hound’s tongue were found on the eastern side of the 

allotment and the western edge of the Jasper Fire. The majority of the noxious weeds 

within the allotment occur along the right-of-way. Sulfur cinquefoil, spotted knapweed, 

and diffuse knapweed also occur on the allotment. 

Tepee Allotment 

The Tepee Allotment is described generally in chapter 1 and in the description of 

“Alternative 2 – Current Management” in chapter 2. Both the Rangeland Vegetation and 

the Botany Reports include common native and non-native grasses and forbs present on 

the allotment as well as more detail on vegetation types (Bindel 2010a and Englebert 

2010). The allotment is characterized by rolling topography and steep canyon slopes and 

ridges covered with patches of thick timber and canyon bottoms of grass. The dominant 

tree species on the allotment is ponderosa pine. There are several natural meadows, but 

pine is encroaching. Other very small meadows or openings are scattered throughout the 

allotment. Only 9 percent of the allotment is classified as rangeland; 69 percent is 

grazable woodland, and 22 percent is rock outcrop. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

83 

Woodlands present in the Tepee Allotment are classified by the NRCS as warm slope, 

cool slope, shallow ridge, or silty footslope, grazable woodlands, based on soil type. 

Overall rangeland health/condition is good and the trend in rangeland condition is 

upward, based on cover frequency studies and professional judgment. There are 22,104 

acres capable of grazing and 21,666 acres suitable for grazing (table 12) (Bindel 2010a 

provides more detail). Some of the private lands are managed under private land grazing 

permits. 

Parts of the allotment were surveyed and treated for noxious weeds in 2004 as part of the 

Jasper Fire inventory and treatment. The most commonly seen noxious weed on this 

allotment is Canada thistle; there is also common mullein, black henbane, hound’s 

tongue, musk thistle, and leafy spurge. 

Water Draw Allotment 

The Water Draw Allotment is described generally in chapter 1 and in the description of 

“Alternative 2 – Current Management” in chapter 2. Both the Rangeland Vegetation and 

the Botany Reports include common native and non-native grasses and forbs present on 

the allotment as well as more detail on vegetation types (Bindel 2010a and Englebert 

2010). The allotment is characterized by moderately rough terrain covered predominately 

with ponderosa pine interspersed with open grass parks. Hell Canyon drainage runs from 

northeast to southwest and is located on the west side of the allotment; the drainage 

creates a natural boundary with steep cliff rim rock a majority of its distance. Only 9 

percent of the allotment is classified as rangeland, 76 percent is grazable woodland, and 

15 percent is rock outcrop. 

Woodlands present in the Water Draw Allotment are classified by the NRCS as warm 

slope or cool slope grazable woodlands, based on soil type (Marriott and FaberLangendoen 2000). 

Overall rangeland health/condition is good and the trend in rangeland condition is 

upward, based on cover frequency studies and professional judgment. There are 6,881 

acres capable of grazing and 5,872 acres suitable for grazing (table 12) (Bindel 2010a 

provides more detail). 

Canada thistle and leafy spurge are the dominant noxious weed species in the area, 

although other noxious weeds observed include plumeless thistle, common mullein, black 

henbane, bull thistle and hound’s tongue, spotted knapweed. 

Environmental Consequences 

Summary of Livestock Grazing Impacts to Rangeland Vegetation 

Rangeland Condition and Trend. A grazed plant’s vigor and production is enhanced by 

three management considerations: (1) timing of grazing in relation to plant growth, (2) 

frequency of use, and (3) intensity of use (Holechek et al. 1995). The setting and effect of 

these management actions is further described. 

Critical growth stages vary among forage species. In general, a time of low energy 

reserves for a plant is during rapid growth and development of flowers. Current thinking 

suggests that grazing at those times can be compensated. Favorable plant growth 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

84 

conditions to restore food reserves before winter provides such compensation (Briske and 

Richards [in Bedunah and Sosebee 1995]; Coyne et al. [in Bedunah and Sosebee 1995]). 

This can be accomplished by the use of pastures in a rotation, allowing plants to grow 

without being grazed at the same time each year. 

Grazing by one kind of animal at the same time every year generally drives species 

composition away from the forage preferred by that animal. Another reason to manage 

timing of use is that grazing animal’s preference changes with the season of use. This is 

predicted by the changing palatability and nutrition levels throughout the year of each 

forage species. Rotation of grazing provides for different levels of use on most species 

between years. Those species preferred in most seasons and providing significant 

amounts of livestock forage (or having other high resource values) are key species to 

manage (Society for Range Management 1989, Holechek et al. 1995). Key species should 

be abundant, productive, and palatable (Holechek et al. 1995). 

Given equal abiotic conditions, intensity of grazing affects the speed at which a plant can 

reproduce meristems (the growing points of a plant). For example, if the meristem at the 

top of the plant remains intact (light intensity grazing), then regrowth is most rapid 

(Briske and Richards [in Bedunah and Sosebee 1995]). Another consideration is that 

some plant parts cannot manufacture food as rapidly as others. Leaf sheaths (at the base 

of each leaf), stems, and older leaves frequently have lower rates of food production than 

younger leaves (Briske and Richards [in Vavra et al. 1994]). This indicates the speed of 

plant recovery from grazing would, in part, be proportionate to the amount of younger 

leaves present. Both intensity and frequency of grazing use affect the presence or absence 

of younger leaves. 

High frequency and intensity of use is likely to result in lower reproductive ability, 

changes in growth form, and the eventual loss of an individual (Holechek et al. 1995). 

When individual plants are lost, they may be replaced by species which have a 

competitive advantage because they are either not being grazed or are adapted to heavy 

grazing. 

Frequency and intensity of grazing does not occur evenly throughout a given pasture. 

Major influences on livestock use are topography, distance to water, and kind and 

availability of forage (Holechek et al. 1995). Additionally, regrowth of herbaceous forage 

is preferred because it is higher in palatability and nutrition levels when compared to 

original growth (Anderson et al. 1990). These tendencies towards uneven use can be 

mitigated by location and use of water developments, fences, and salt/mineral; by use of 

herding or a different class or breed of livestock; and by changing the season of grazing. 

Livestock tend to use uplands more in the early summer and fall, when temperatures are 

cooler. Higher concentrations of livestock in some areas due to water developments or 

fencing strategies may result in development or continuation of trail erosion and loss or 

damage of individual plants due to trampling. 

Trampling has a direct effect to plants as animals (both wild and domestic) cut, bruise, 

and break plant structures during walking and running. The degree of plant damage 

changes according to the plant’s moisture content, elevation of growing points, physical 

strength of leaves, and flexibility of plant parts (Edmond 1966 [in Heady and Child 

1994]). Dry plant materials tend to break rather than bend under the hoof, so late seasonal 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

85 

effects often exceed growing season damage for many species. The breakage may be 

desirable if it lays dead grass materials on the soil surface where decomposition occurs 

rapidly, or it may be undesirable if it results in loss of soil protection. In general, 

rhizomatous grasses resist trampling more than do bunchgrasses (Heady and Child 1994). 

The effects of grazing can be managed by controlling the timing, frequency, and intensity 

of use. The main focus is to allow the grazed plants time to recover vigor, produce seed 

(in at least some years), and establish new production. The timing and duration of 

recovery is based on the growth requirements of the key species and the amount of 

defoliation that has been allowed. Some methods of managing for healthy grazed plants 

include: using complete rest for an entire season; limiting the amount of utilization that is 

allowed; changing the number of animals and/or season grazed; using multiple pastures 

and grazing them at different times of the year between years; use of herding, salt, and 

water developments to distribute grazing pressure over the land. 

High numbers of big game animals, especially elk, can have a significant effect on 

herbaceous vegetation. Dietary preferences of elk and deer overlap those of livestock 

(Brewer et al. 2007; Torstenson et al. 2007). Grazing management of forage by the Forest 

Service takes wildlife grazing use into consideration. Management of elk and deer 

numbers is under the control of the South Dakota Game Fish and Parks on the Bull Flats, 

French Creek, Water Draw, Tepee, and Lithograph Allotments, and the majority of the 

Lower Beaver Allotment is under the control of the Wyoming Fish and Game 

Department in the Wyoming portion of the Lower Beaver Allotment. Currently there 

appears to be no conflicts between wildlife and livestock grazing use on the 5 allotments 

where livestock grazing is presently occurring (there is currently no livestock grazing on 

the Water Draw Allotment). This would be expected to continue under current 

management provided elk and deer numbers do not substantially increase in the project 

area. 

Portions of the project area are used as hunting areas. Hunters and other recreationists 

often leave gates open. Livestock may then wander into pastures where they have 

already grazed or into pastures that should be rested until later in the season. This can 

cause additional use in excess of allowable use standards already met, or consumption of 

forage that should have been available for use later in the season. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Rangeland Condition and Trend. Livestock would be removed from the project area 

under alternative 1; therefore, the direct effects of domestic livestock grazing would be 

eliminated. However, wildlife grazing and browsing would continue. The amount of 

wildlife use would vary, but overall utilization of grass, forbs, and shrubs is expected to 

be substantially lower with implementation of alternative 1 due to the removal of 

domestic livestock. There are several factors affecting wildlife preference including 

palatability and relative nutritional value. It is likely that wildlife use would continue to 

be high in some areas and low in other areas. 

Those plant species previously grazed by livestock would initially respond to livestock 

removal with an increase in vigor, production, and abundance. An increase in litter would 

also occur because of decreased grazing and utilization. Those plants not previously 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

86 

grazed would either maintain or decrease their level of vigor and production due to 

increased competition. An overall increase in biomass production would occur in the 

short term. However, over the long term, this biomass increase would become static or 

may decline over time until a disturbance event (e.g., fire or ungulate grazing). This is 

expected because nutrients required for plant growth increasingly become tied up in live 

plant material and litter (Coyne et al. 1995). Over time plants that had been grazed in the 

past lose palatability and become decadent as past-years growth is not broken down, and 

inter-plant spacing becomes wider. 

Rates of change in plant composition, abundance, and distribution in the project area over 

time is dependent on a variety of factors, such as depth of soil and available moisture 

(Holecheck et al. 1995) and changes would differ over time and between sites. 

Studies in the Black Hills have shown similar levels of biomass production on grazed and 

ungrazed sites, but in prairie communities both total production and grass production 

were notably greater on the ungrazed sites (Pase and Thilenius 1968). 

Forage plants that decrease in response to grazing would increase in the absence of 

livestock grazing. Some plants that spend energy to avoid being grazed (e.g., those with 

poisonous compounds or spines) would no longer have a competitive advantage. 

However, not all species that increase in response to grazing, such as western snowberry 

(Symphoricarpos occidentalis), would decline with the removal of livestock. Those 

forage plants that withstand grazing well, such as Kentucky bluegrass, timothy (Phleum 

pratense) and blue grama, may remain relatively abundant. In Pase and Thilenius’ (1968) 

study of Kentucky bluegrass communities, one of three protected bottomland sites had a 

greater composition of Kentucky bluegrass than their grazed counterparts. Laycock 

(1994) concluded that Kentucky bluegrass sites in Colorado mountain parks are very 

stable. 

Recent studies comparing grazed and ungrazed mixed-grass prairie in North Dakota 

(DeKeyser et al. 2009; Murphy and Grant 2005) have shown that the invasive species, 

smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and Kentucky bluegrass replaced the native grasses and 

native forbs that were historically part of those communities when livestock were 

removed from these areas for over 30 years. 

It is unlikely that species composition would achieve its pre-European settlement state 

(Holechek et al. 1995; Pieper 1994; Laycock 1994). Factors such as precipitation, fire, 

wildlife use, site potential, and current conditions, influence species composition at any 

given time after the removal of grazing (Holechek et al. 1995; Pieper 1994; National 

Research Council 1994). 

Under Alternative 1, short-term range condition and trend would improve across most 

sites. This upward trend would be the result of an increase in plant vigor, production and 

abundance. Rangeland condition at any given site is affected by a multitude of 

environmental variables and current conditions. The initial upward trend of individual 

sites in response to the removal of livestock grazing would vary according to its current 

condition and species composition. The most prominent increase in short-term trend 

would likely be evident on sites having deep, moist, soils, while sites occurring on 

shallow soils would be expected to have a less prominent increase in range condition and 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

87 

trend. This is expected due to relative proportions of available water and site production 

potential of deep and shallow soils. 

Under Alternative 1, long-term range condition and trend would be static or possibly 

decline. Many sites within the project area developed under a sporadic disturbance 

regime that included natural or human-induced wildfire, light to severe grazing by bison 

and other large herbivores, and other biotic and abiotic factors that typically influence 

soil/site development. Extended periods of non-use and/or lack of fire on these rangeland 

sites could result in excessive litter and changes to the plant community and/or species 

composition. Desired range condition would be maintained or reached in some areas, but 

may decline in other areas over the long-term for the reasons described above. 

Noxious Weeds. Risk of noxious weed invasion would not increase and may decrease 

minimally in the long-term with the removal of livestock grazing. Overall, vegetation and 

litter cover would increase with a removal of domestic livestock grazing, and this would 

minimize the amount of bare soil (noxious weeds germinate readily in bare soil). By 

removal of livestock operations on the allotments, and the subsequent removal of corrals, 

fences, gathering areas, and the need for day-to-day operations, noxious weed risk would 

also decrease to a minimal degree in the long term. Removal of livestock fences, water 

developments and associated pipelines may result in some vegetation and soil 

disturbance, providing a temporary or short-term minimal increase in risk of noxious 

weed establishment. Current weed management, planned treatments, and monitoring are 

part of the Black Hills National Forest Noxious Weed Management Plan (2003) and 

would continue with all alternatives including Alternative 1. 

Other on-going, in-progress, and future actions (table 9) would result in the potential to 

increase noxious weeds through vegetation management activities, travel management 

activities, and prescribed burning. Timber management activities, for example, disturb 

soil and have the potential to introduce new species. However, best management 

practices and project design criteria apply to all projects on the Forest for the purpose of 

reducing the spread of noxious weeds. Application of these practices for other projects 

would minimize the potential for substantial spread. In addition, there is a noxious weed 

treatment plan being implemented district-wide that is in progress to target these species 

and minimize new occurrences. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effect of eliminating livestock grazing on National Forest System lands 

would be to improve or maintain desired conditions in the short-term, but to become 

neutral or decline in condition in the long-term. 

The Black Hills evolved under a periodic disturbance regime that included natural or 

human-induced wildfire, light to severe grazing by bison and other large herbivores, and 

other biotic and abiotic factors that typically influence soil/site development. The 

suppression of wildfire has led to conifer encroachment into meadows and dense stands 

of timber to dominate parts of the project area. Conifer encroachment causes the plant 

community to shift to an understory dominated by plants that are more shade tolerant and 

are usually less palatable and desirable to both livestock and wildlife. This shift also 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

88 

causes a loss of species diversity in meadows and openings. Future and ongoing timber 

and fuels management projects would allow for the recovery of these meadows and 

openings, thereby having a neutral cumulative effect to the rangeland resource over the 

long-term. 

Other on-going, in-progress and future actions (Table 9) would result in overall neutral 

effects to rangeland condition and trend. Adding these effects to those direct/indirect 

effects described above would result in overall neutral cumulative effects. 

The cumulative effects to the risk of noxious weed introduction and dissemination within 

the project area in the long-term in conjunction with livestock removal would result in an 

overall neutral to minor/minimal decrease in risk of noxious weed introduction and 

spread. 

Alternative 2 – Current Management 

Direct/ Indirect Effects 

Rangeland Condition and Trend. Under the current management alternative, vegetation 

on rangelands would progress at different rates toward desired conditions. The condition 

and trend of the soil and vegetation would likely be maintained or be improved. 

Ecological processes would continue to function properly. Continuing current 

management includes monitoring of existing benchmark areas to ensure that management 

actions are working. If monitoring were to show that desired conditions were not being 

maintained, appropriate action would be taken to move conditions back toward desired. 

The effects of grazing can be managed by controlling the timing, frequency, and intensity 

of use (described in detail above). Existing management practices have and should 

continue to allow for these considerations to be a part of every decision. Existing 

stocking rates would allow current soil and vegetation conditions to be sustainably 

maintained in the long term. Monitoring would ensure that this occurs. 

Soil stability and the infiltration of precipitation into the soil can be maintained by 

grazing practices which provide adequate vegetative and litter cover. Existing grazing 

management systems and practices are working as these ecological processes are 

functioning as shown by current monitoring. 

If a permittee does a good job of pasture management, the effect is a stable resource 

where desired conditions can be maintained. Existing management on these allotments 

has resulted in close communications with the permittees over the years. The permittees 

have become involved in the management of the rangeland as well as management of 

their livestock (on the Forest, as well as on their waived private land within the 

allotments). Good allotment and pasture management has resulted in satisfactory range 

conditions. Continuation of the existing grazing management, practices, and monitoring 

should result in maintaining these desired conditions. 

No new range structural improvement construction is proposed within the project area 

under the current management alternative; however, maintenance of existing 

improvements would continue to occur as needed. There may be some vegetation and 

soil disturbance associated with some of the maintenance efforts, but the effects would be 

isolated and confined to the immediate vicinity of the range improvements and reseeding 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

89 

would be done if needed. No loss of site productivity or erosion problems is expected to 

result from the maintenance of improvements. 

Noxious Weeds. Risk of noxious weed invasion would not increase and may decrease 

minimally in the long-term under the existing grazing conditions. Vegetation and litter 

cover would remain at or continue to move towards desired conditions which would 

minimize the amount of bare soil. Bare soil and soil disturbance provide avenues for 

noxious weed introduction and dissemination. Bare soil thresholds are described for all 

the benchmark areas. Current weed management, planned treatments, and monitoring are 

part of the Black Hills National Forest Noxious Weed Management Plan (2003) and 

would continue with all alternatives including Alternative 2 and 3.

Cumulative Effects 

This analysis area is bound in space by the allotment boundaries and is bound in time by 

about 30 years into the past and the life of the project which is approximately 10 to 20 

years into the future. The historical past is relevant to the cumulative effects of this 

project because those practices had an impact on the current existing condition. 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the Hell Canyon Range 2010 

Project area are discussed briefly at the beginning of this chapter; on-going and future 

actions are shown in table 9. 

Population growth in and around the project area could lead to greater numbers of Forest 

users. OHV and motorcycle use already impacts livestock distribution. ATV operators 

and other recreationalists often leave gates open. Livestock may then wander into 

pastures where they have already grazed or into pastures that should be rested until later 

in the season. This can cause additional use in excess of allowable use standards already 

met, or consumption of forage meant for use later in the season. 

Timber management would continue to open canopies which would maintain grass, forb, 

and shrub production. This may improve upland vegetation production, although this is 

not the limiting factor to overall grazing capacity for either livestock or wildlife. 

However, a decrease in the acres harvested would likely affect future grazing 

opportunities, especially in places that are currently secondary range areas, whereas 

prescribed fire would have the opposite effect. While past timber management practices 

have had an overall positive effect on promoting herbaceous conditions through increased 

understory vegetation production, introduction and establishment of noxious weeds has 

occurred in some timber sale areas. 

Invasive species monitoring and noxious weed treatment would continue to keep the 

rangeland resource in the desired condition. Planned treatments and monitoring is part of 

the Forest Plan and an integral part of the 2003 Noxious Weed Management Plan. 

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Adaptive management actions under alternative 3 (proposed action) are based on the 

principle of applying adaptive management. A proposed course of action was selected as 

a starting point believed to best meet or move toward the desired condition. Some 

practices alone may not meet the desired condition, but in combination with other 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

90 

practices, desired conditions may be met or moved toward being met. Table 4 (in chapter 

2) lists potential adaptive management options that may be used to address a site-specific 

need during the course of project implementation. The direct/indirect effects of 

implementing these options to rangeland vegetation are included in appendix E. 

Adaptive management encourages closer communications with the permittees and 

encourages permittees to become more involved in the management of the rangeland and 

not just the livestock. If a permittee does a good job of pasture management, desired 

conditions would be maintained or there would be movement toward desired conditions. 

Bull Flats 

Because no changes are proposed to the management of the Bull Flats Allotment, 

direct/indirect effects are the same as those described for alternative 2. 

French Creek 

The creation of a fourth pasture (the existing Pope Springs Unit would be divided) would 

improve cattle distribution, allow for additional management flexibility, and provide 

further protection of French Creek. The division of large pastures can better distribute 

animals and forage utilization (Heady and Child 1994). As management unit area size 

increases, effects of uneven grazing patterns through time and space increase (Senft et al. 

1985; Stuth 1991; Bailey et al. 1996). Therefore, reducing the management area size 

through pasture division would likely result in reduced preferential use of specific 

patches of vegetation resulting in less pressure (both frequency and intensity) on 

preferred forage. Management flexibility is increased by being able to more precisely 

control the timing and frequency of defoliation by cattle. 

Implementation of alternative 3 would remove approximately 50 acres from the available 

forage base due to riparian fencing. Water would be pumped to tanks located on either 

side of the pasture division zone. Individual forage plants immediately surrounding (5 to 

10 meters) the stock tanks may be lost or lose vigor due to increased wildlife and cattle 

presence. Livestock have the tendency to walk along fences and livestock trails may be 

created along fence lines resulting in the loss of individual plants. 

A 50-head reduction in permitted numbers represents a 27 percent reduction in permitted 

AMs. Studies have shown that stocking rate is the most consistent management variable 

influencing both plant and animal responses to grazing (Heady 1961; O’Reagain and 

Turner 1992; Ash and Stafford Smith 1996; Holechek et al. 2001). Existing conditions 

for upland vegetation would be maintained and/or would improve. The more productive 

range sites may respond more rapidly, especially those associated with riparian plant 

communities. Plant communities associated with less resilient shallow and/or rocky soils, 

and particularly those communities dominated by introduced species, may require more 

than 15 years to move toward a higher percent desired vegetative composition. 

Installing new and relocating water tanks would improve distribution of livestock within 

the pasture. Permanent water sources serve as focal points for grazing animals (Heady 

and Child 1994). Distribution of livestock within the pasture would become more even 

because of the development of new sources of water. Water can be used to attract cattle 

to little-used forage resources, to divide large herds into smaller ones, and to reduce 

trailing (Heady and Child 1994). Individual plants immediately surrounding the 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

91 

development (5 to 10 meters) may be lost or lose vigor due to increased wildlife and 

cattle presence. There may be some vegetation and soil disturbance associated with 

installation, but the effects would be isolated and confined to the immediate vicinity of 

the range improvement; reseeding or hardening of the surface would be done if needed. 

Dugouts would be developed to provide additional seasonal watering sites and to help 

disperse cattle across a pasture. Dugouts are designed to capture seasonal runoff from the 

surrounding topography or from the roadside. These act essentially as ephemeral ponds 

providing water for livestock and wildlife. The degree of use of surrounding forage by 

livestock and wildlife varies with the amount of water present within the dugout at any 

given point in time and its location relative to other sources of water. There would be 

detrimental soil impacts to the watering area, but the impacts are small and localized and 

would be well within the 15 percent detrimental impact standard (see soil and water 

section of this chapter and the Soil and Water Report (Gonyer 2010)). 

Changes in management practices would improve grazing efficiency and reduce any 

adverse effects on soil and vegetation with the allotment. Due to the need for increased 

management efforts of French Creek, a one permit operation would be beneficial to 

increase efficiency on this allotment. There would be greater flexibility in implementing 

adaptive management decisions in the allotment with one permittee rather than three. 

An increase in efficiency relating to management of the allotment by one permit would 

also be reflected in relationships with adjacent private property owners. The intermingled 

ownership creates additional complexities in management of livestock. Private property 

owners often do not understand rules and regulation associated with livestock on Federal 

lands adjacent to private land. One permittee with one herd of livestock would more 

likely have open communications between the permittee, private landowner, and the 

Forest Service. 

Limiting livestock use in the French Creek unit to 20 days for 2 years with a later turn-on 

date of June 15 while being herded by a range rider would improve riparian and upland 

vegetation in the French Creek unit. This would allow the riparian and streambank 

conditions to recover and lead to more evenness of upland utilization (because of the 

range rider). Cattle can learn to avoid places and can remember locations where they 

have foraged and if the forage resources merit a return visit (Provenza and Balph 1988; 

Bailey et al. 1989; in Heady and Child 1994). 

The vegetation and soils within proposed exclosures would not be directly affected by 

livestock. These small localized areas would be affected similarly to those discussed 

under alternative 1 (no grazing). 

Lithograph 

Alternative 3 (proposed action) for the Lithograph Allotment includes continuation of the 

three-pasture deferred-rotation-grazing system and current permitted numbers, as 

described in alternative 2 (current management), but with a few minor adjustments. 

Effects of potential adaptive management actions are discussed in appendix E. 

The vegetation and soils within the proposed exclosure would not be directly affected by 

livestock. This small (less than 1 acre) localized area would receive effects similar to 

those discussed under alternative 1 (no action). 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

92 

Piping the water from Babcock Spring to the meadow downhill would allow the riparian 

vegetation associated with the spring to recover by drawing grazing ungulates away from 

the spring. Overall distribution of livestock within the pasture would improve. Water can 

be used to attract cattle to little used forage resources, to divide large herds into smaller 

ones, and to reduce trailing (Heady and Child 1994). Individual plants immediately 

surrounding the stock tank (5 to 10 meters) may be lost or lose vigor due to increased 

wildlife and cattle presence. There may be some vegetation and soil disturbance 

associated with some of the installation efforts, however the effects would be isolated and 

confined to the immediate vicinity of the range improvement and reseeding or hardening 

of the surface would be done if needed. 

Lower Beaver 

Alternative 3 (proposed action) for the Lower Beaver Allotment includes continuation of 

the current deferred rotation grazing system and current permitted numbers, as described 

in alternative 2 (current management), but with a few minor adjustments. Effects of 

potential adaptive management actions are discussed in appendix E. 

Installing new or relocating water tanks would improve distribution of livestock within 

the pasture. Permanent water sources serve as focal points for grazing animals (Heady 

and Child 1994). Water can be used to attract cattle to little-used forage resources, to 

divide large herds into smaller ones, and to reduce trailing (Heady and Child 1994). 

Individual plants immediately surrounding the development (5 to 10 meters) may be lost 

or lose vigor due to increased wildlife and cattle presence. There may be some vegetation 

and soil disturbance associated with installation, however the effects would be isolated 

and confined to the immediate vicinity of the range improvement and reseeding or 

hardening of the surface would be done if needed. 

The particular dugout that is proposed to be backfilled is no longer a crucial water source 

for livestock. The removal of this dugout should not adversely impact the distribution of 

cattle within the pasture. There may be some vegetation and soil disturbance associated 

with some of the backfilling, however the effects would be isolated and confined to the 

immediate vicinity of the dugout and reseeding of the surface would be done if needed. 

Tepee 

Alternative 3 (proposed action) for the Tepee Allotment includes continuation of the 

current grazing system and current permitted numbers as described in alternative 2 

(current management), but with a few minor adjustments. Alternative 3 (proposed action) 

for the Tepee Allotment also includes construction of three new stock tanks and an 

additional pipeline to improve water. Effects of potential adaptive management actions 

are discussed in appendix E. 

Installing new or relocating existing water tanks would improve distribution of livestock 

within the pasture. Permanent water sources serve as focal points for grazing animals 

(Heady and Child 1994). Distribution of livestock within the pasture would become more 

even due to the development of new sources of water. Water can be used to attract cattle 

to little-used forage resources, to divide large herds into smaller ones, and to reduce 

trailing (Heady and Child 1994). Individual plants immediately surrounding the 

development (5 to 10 meters) may be lost or lose vigor due to increased wildlife and 

cattle presence. There may be some vegetation and soil disturbance associated with 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

93 

installation, however the effects would be isolated and confined to the immediate vicinity 

of the range improvement and reseeding or hardening of the surface would be done if 

needed. 

The proposed exclosures would exclude approximately 2 acres from grazing. Some cattle 

trailing may occur along exclosure fence lines. Livestock have the tendency to walk 

along fences and cause bare paths that concentrate and accelerate runoff, detrimentally 

impacting soils. The degree of impact would vary with soil moisture content, particle 

size, existing vegetation, and location of the fence on the landscape. 

Water Draw 

The Proposed Action includes moving the permitted use of two permits from the French 

Creek Allotment to the Water Draw Allotment for a total of 50 cows with calves. The 

allotment would be run in a three-pasture rest-rotation system. Several improvements are 

proposed including constructing approximately six new stock tanks, approximately 3.5 

miles of pipeline, and maintenance and reconstruction of several fences and water 

developments that were damaged or destroyed by the Jasper Fire (2000) and Roger Shack 

Fire (2001). Spring sites with the capacity to be operational would be made functional 

before livestock are allowed on the allotment. This includes repairing existing or building 

new exclosure fences to ensure spring sources (e.g., Lithograph, Log Trough, Stockade, 

Stockade #2, A&E in Section 13, and Water Draw) are protected. Effects of potential 

adaptive management actions are discussed in Table 8. 

Records of historic grazing rates on the Water Draw indicate that the proposed 252 AMs 

is a conservative stocking rate for the allotment. Records show that the last continuously 

held permit on Water Draw was for 78 cow/calf pairs at 393 AMs between 1991 and 

1998. The proposed stocking rate is 36 percent lower than the historic rate. Similarity 

coefficient scores indicate that upland vegetation in Water Draw Allotment is in excellent 

condition and could accommodate previously permitted stocking rates. In the absence of 

recent continuous allowable use data (there has been no continuous permitted cattle 

grazing on the allotment since 1998), an initial stocking rate analysis was performed 

using NRCS production potential based on soil type, suitable acres, 50 percent allowable 

use, and current similarity coefficients. Based on this analysis, the proposed 50 head of 

cattle represent 11 percent of what theoretically could be stocked on the allotment (see 

Range Specialist Report for calculations). 

Installing new water tanks would facilitate proper distribution of livestock within the 

pasture. Permanent water sources serve as focal points for grazing animals (Heady and 

Child 1994). Grazing patterns within the pasture would be strongly influenced by sources 

of water. Water can be used to attract cattle to little-used forage resources, to divide large 

herds into smaller ones, and to reduce trailing (Heady and Child 1994; Holechek 2004). 

Individual plants immediately surrounding the development (5 to 10 meters) may be lost 

or lose vigor due to increased wildlife and cattle presence. There may be some vegetation 

and soil disturbance associated with installation, however the effects would be isolated 

and confined to the immediate vicinity of the range improvement and reseeding or 

hardening of the surface would be done if needed. 

The proposed exclosures would exclude approximately 25 acres from grazing. Some 

cattle trailing may occur along exclosure fence lines. Livestock have the tendency to walk 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

94 

along fences and cause bare paths that concentrate and accelerate runoff, detrimentally 

impacting soils. The degree of impact would vary with soil moisture content, particle 

size, existing vegetation, and location of the fence on the landscape. 

Cumulative Effects 

Many of the aspects of cumulative effects described for alternative 2 apply to alternative 

3 as well, because the analysis area is the same and both alternatives would authorize 

livestock grazing. 

Some adjacent private lands have been developed into ranchettes. Some property owners 

graze livestock (primarily horses) on these properties. Some overgrazing on private land 

does occur. It has the same impact of reducing the vegetative cover, increasing the 

amount of sediment transported into the streams, and increasing the likelihood of noxious 

weed infestations (as does unmanaged grazing on the Forest). Adaptive management 

practices would set thresholds for the Forest, and thus would not add to the cumulative 

effects of these off-Forest grazing activities. 

If elk populations increase in the project area, competition for forage would increase 

because the diets of elk and cattle overlap. As competition increases, adaptive 

management options would be used as needed to ensure rangeland resources do not trend 

downward. 

The Black Hills evolved under drought. A diverse and healthy plant community curbs the 

effects of drought. Monitoring and the ability to respond to changing conditions would 

insure that in drought conditions, rangeland resource would not trend downward. The 

adaptive management alternative is best positioned to respond to periodic disturbances 

such as drought or wildfire in that it provides for open communications with permittees 

and resource specialists. 

Summary 

The current condition of rangeland within the project area has been reviewed and 

compared with the desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan, as well as other 

applicable goals and objectives. All of the allotments in the project area are currently 

meeting desired condition and trend for rangeland health based on cover frequency 

studies and professional judgment. However, opportunities for improvement were 

identified. 

Alternative 1 would result in an overall improvement in rangeland condition and trend, at 

least in the short term. Risk of noxious weed introduction/spread would decrease 

minimally with removal of daily operations and activities. 

Alternative 2 would result in maintenance and/or improvement in rangeland condition 

and trend; areas would progress toward desired conditions at different rates. Resource 

concern areas (riparian areas) would remain the same or may improve slowly over the 

long term. Risk of noxious weed introduction/spread would remain unchanged due to 

continued risk of introduction through daily operations and activities, minimized through 

adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

Alternative 3 would result in an overall improvement in rangeland condition and trend 

over the long term and would be particularly noticeable in resource concern areas 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

95 

(riparian areas). Areas would progress toward desired conditions at different rates, but 

would achieve desired conditions more quickly than alternative 2. Risk of noxious weed 

introduction/spread would increase due to construction of new improvements, but this 

would be minimized by implementation of project design features and adherence to 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines. 

The intention of grazing management is to always meet Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines. Both action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and 

the purpose and needs identified in this project. The site-specific concerns identified are 

best addressed through alternative 3. 

Monitoring key areas and benchmarks provides insurance to all other areas of the pasture 

since key areas have been chosen to show the effects of livestock grazing and its 

management. If a permittee does a good job of pasture management, the effect is more 

even distribution of cattle and grazing use across a pasture. Promoting more even use 

means that previously ungrazed plants would have more chance of being grazed 

(stimulating growth) and that individually, frequently grazed plants would be grazed 

fewer times. This system encourages responsible management because it rewards 

permittees for good management while poor performance is resolved as appropriate. 

Livestock grazing is an authorized use of National Forest System lands. Goal 3 of the 

Forest Plan states that sustained commodity uses should be provided in an 

environmentally acceptable manner and that rangelands should be maintained in 

satisfactory range condition. Commodities, including livestock, contribute to the 

economies of local and regional communities. Because sustained commodity production 

depends on sustainable ecosystems, the Forest Plan further directs that livestock grazing 

would occur without impairing the health of ecosystems and in a manner compatible with 

other Forest uses. Alternative 1 would not provide productive use of range forage under 

goal 3 of the Forest Plan. Alternatives 2 and 3 would meet goal 3 of the Forest Plan; 

however, alternative 3 is best suited to achieve this goal and respond to uncertainty and 

changing conditions over time. 

Botany _________________________________________ 

Methodology 

A prefield review of Region 2 sensitive plant species and potential habitat was completed 

using existing district data; communicating with Forest personnel; and preparing the 

biological assessments/evaluations for the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1996), the 

2001 Phase 1 Amendment to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2001) and the 2005 

Phase II Amendment to the Revised Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005b). Botanical 

surveys were conducted across various portions of the project area each year from 2004 

through 2009 to collect information related to plant communities, assess habitat, and 

locations of target plant species (i.e., sensitive species, State-listed species, and species of 

local concern). Hillshade (a GIS model which estimates high probability sensitive plant 

habitat based on the amount of shade, and therefore moisture), soil mapping data, Forest 

Resource Information System database, aerial photographs, and topographic maps were 

all used to identify potential habitat and survey areas. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

96 

Livestock grazing can result in changes in habitat quality for plants, and these changes 

can be both beneficial and adverse depending on proximity of grazing to occupied 

habitat, season of use, duration of grazing, sensitivity of species involved, and habitat 

type affected. Impacts to target plant species may be direct (e.g., trampling or grazing) or 

the impacts may be more indirect (e.g., a change in the microclimate or noxious weed 

infestation due to disturbance), resulting in a loss of habitat. The following measurement 

indicators were used to evaluate the effects of implementation of the alternatives: 

 changes in habitat quality and population trends for Forest Service Region 2 

sensitive plants 

 changes in habitat quality and population trends for plant species of local concern 

(SOLC) 

Federally listed plant species were reviewed for applicability to this project (list updated 

on September 2008 and accessed at 

http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/endsppbycounty.htm). No federally listed or 

proposed plant species occur on the Black Hills National Forest. 

South Dakota State-listed species were also reviewed for applicability to this project. 

Two species occur in the project area, sleepygrass (Achnatherum robustum) and 

Fendler’s whitethorn (Ceanothus fendleri). Neither of these species is readily grazed by 

livestock. Cattle generally avoid sleepygrass (Jones et al 2000) and Fendler’s whitethorn 

has a resource value rating of low for livestock grazing (USDA Forest Service 1996) 

meaning it is “not relished and normally consumed only to a small degree or not at all”. 

Because these species are not usually grazed and they do not appear to be grazed in the 

project area based on field observations, these species were dismissed from further 

evaluation (see the Botany Report for more detail [Englebert 2010]). 

The proposed Fanny/Boles Research Natural Area (RNA) is located wholly within the 

Lower Beaver Allotment. The main community type in the 313-acre RNA is Mountain 

Mahogany/Side-Oats Shrubland. The floristic inventory is currently underway for the 

RNA, and when completed, the establishment record will be written, followed by the 

RNA management plan. The RNA management plan will consider appropriateness of 

livestock grazing along with other uses. Because of the topography of the area (steep and 

rocky), the RNA currently receives only incidental livestock use. The level of livestock 

use would not measurably change with implementation of any of the alternatives; 

therefore impacts to this RNA were dismissed from further evaluation (see the Botany 

Report for more detail [Englebert 2010]). 

Affected Environment 

Sensitive Plants. R2 sensitive species are species for which population viability is of 

concern, as evidenced by current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or 

density, or by current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability (USDA Forest 

Service 2009). All R2 sensitive plant species potentially occurring in the Black Hills 

National Forest were considered in the project area. Seven sensitive species have suitable 

habitat in the project area (table 13). All other species were dropped from further 

evaluation due to the lack of suitable habitat in the project area. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Table 13. Sensitive, SOLC, and State-listed plants relevant to the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project, based on known occurrence

Common Name Species Habitat Occurrence in 

Sensitive Iowa moonwort Botrychium 

campestre 

Variable, open grassy sites with a diverse forb component occurring over 

limestone derived soils. Range-wide it is considered a grassland species, associated with sandy grassland habitats in prairies, dunes, railroad sidings, and fields over limestone. 

Six populations 

the Lower Beavebelieved to be enarrowleaf grapeboth species. 

narrowleaf grapefern 

Botrychium lineare 

In the Black Hills, variable, open grassy sites with historic disturbances, such as skid trails, known from a deciduous overstory site. Elsewhere in its range, this species has often been documented to occur in areas of road disturbances and other human and natural disturbances. 

Six populations 

the Lower Beavebelieved to be enarrowleaf grapeboth species. 

yellow lady’s slipper 

Cypripedium parviflorum 

Habitat in the Black Hills includes stream banks under both spruce and deciduous overstories, moist cliffs (usually north-facing), and moist areas/seeps under white spruce (Picea glauca) or mixed conifer forest. Occasionally, found on upper mesic forest slopes. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 3,500 to 6,500 feet. 

No known occurhabitat occurs in community type 

trailing clubmoss Lycopodium 

complanatum 

Black Hills known occurrences are located in the northern Black Hills on shaded, north-facing, white spruce dominated slopes often with paper birch (Betula papyrifera) or quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Black Hills 

occurrences range in elevation from 4,960 to 6,340 feet. 

No known occurhabitat occurs in community type 

large round-leaf orchid 

Platanthera orbiculata 

Black Hills occurrences are found primarily on shady, north-facing slopes in paper birch/hardwood or white spruce forests on moist, rich, humus soil. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 4,350 to 6,150 feet. 

No known occurhabitat occurs in community type 

highbush cranberry 

Viburnum opulus var. americana 

The large majority of documented Black Hills occurrences is in drainage bottoms or low slopes with moist soil conditions with partial shading. Currently known sites are primarily associated with paper birch/ironwood (Ostrya virginiana) and paper birch/hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) 

communities, with or without white spruce or quaking aspen. Black Hills occurrences range in elevation from 3,800 to 5,700 feet. 

No known occurhabitat occurs in community type 

sphagnum, narrowleaf peatmoss 

Sphagnum angustifolium 

Sphagnum angustifolium is scattered across northern North America. In the United States, it is known to occur in Alaska and Maine, south to California and across the north-central portion of the country to North Carolina. In the Black Hills it is currently only known to occur in the Rochford Cemetery Fen on the Mystic Ranger District. In Region 2, the species is not known outside of fen habitats (USDA 2007). This site is found at 5,500 feet. 

No known occurCreek fen is pot
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

98 

Common Name Species Habitat Occurrence in SOLC pleated gentian Gentiana affinis In the Black Hills this species is known from limestone areas at elevations 

from approximately 5,000 to 6,500 feet in moist areas with open conditions. 

Possible; suitab

broadlipped twayblade

Listera convallarioides

Both known sites are located in Lawrence County on the Northern Hills Ranger District in boreal saturated Picea glauca-associated habitat 

conditions at 5,200 to 6,400 feet. Saturated spruce sites do occur along 

French Creek in this project area. 

Possible; suitab

leathery grapefern Botrychium multifidum 

Rangewide, it grows in moist, open or shaded areas, including old pastures, meadows, woodland margins, riverbanks and bottom lands. Most Black Hills occurrences are in mossy, mesic sites dominated by white spruce (Picea glauca) or mixed spruce-pine (Pinus ponderosa) along 

small, perennial streams. 

Possible; s

stiff clubmoss Lycopodium 

annotinum

Occurrences are associated with high moisture microhabitats within remnant boreal Picea glauca and Betula papyrifera communities. Current elevation range is 5,100 to 6,300 feet. Spruce/birch do occur along French Creek in this project area. 

Possible; suitab

narrowleaf sweet coltsfoot

Petasites sagittatus

In the Black Hills, sites are in open to partial shade from 5,400 to 6,750 feet in dry to wet meadows along streams with saturated soils. 

Possible; suitab

shining willow Salix lucida 

caudata

Currently known to exist only on the Bearlodge and Hell Canyon Districts. 

Associated with open to partially shaded streambanks, shores, wet meadows, and seeps. 

Possible; suitab
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

99 

Plant Species of Local Concern: Species of local concern (SOLC) are species that do 

not meet the criteria for sensitive status. These include species with declining trends in 

only a portion of Region 2, or those that are important components of diversity in a local 

area, for example. Forest Service Manual 2622.01 mandates consideration of species of 

local concern during project planning. There is potential habitat for five SOLC in the 

project area, as summarized in table 13. No confirmed populations of any of these species 

are known from the project area 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Sensitive Species. Under alternative 1 (no action) no livestock grazing would occur. 

Therefore, there would be no direct effects from livestock on the sensitive species and/or 

its habitat. A possible indirect effect of alternative 1 is the accumulation of plant litter. 

An accumulation of plant litter could result in an increase in fine fuels which could 

increase the potential for large-scale fire. This could result in a loss of sensitive plant 

habitat. An intense fire resulting in high-severity effects, such as deep soil heating, could 

negatively affect both the belowground and aboveground portions of Botrychium

individuals. 

Species of Local Concern. According to Farrar (2004) it is important to maintain the 

same level of disturbance for the past several years for members of the genus 

Botrychium. In addition, a species evaluation recently prepared for the Rocky Mountain 

Region questions that rather than being vulnerable to habitat alterations, Botrychium 

campestre may actually be tolerant of, or dependent on grazing, fire, and other localized 

soil disturbance (USDA Forest Service 2005b). Therefore, if grazing is removed from 

the project area, as proposed in alternative 1, there may be detrimental effects to B. 

campestre and B. lineare. 

Under alternative 1 (no action) no livestock grazing would occur. Therefore, there would 

be no direct effects from livestock. The probable habitat for these six species along 

French Creek would be enhanced. A possible indirect effect of alternative 1 is the 

accumulation of plant litter. An accumulation of plant litter could result in an increase in 

fine fuels to build and may increase the potential for large-scale fire. Under such 

conditions, the moist forested sites and riparian areas that do not generally burn could 

ignite and burn at high temperatures, resulting in a loss of plant habitat. 

Alternative 2 – Current Management 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Sensitive Species. Alternative 2 proposes to continue grazing as currently permitted. As 

discussed above, grazing may be a benefit to Botrychium species. The Water Draw 

Allotment (there are no known occurrences of these species in the Water Draw 

Allotment) would continue to not be grazed. 

On all the allotments except Water Draw, there is the possible direct impact of trampling 

by cattle, but individuals are not likely to be grazed because of the plant’s small stature. 

In addition, because the aboveground phase of the plant is from early April to early June, 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

100 

it is generally unlikely that most aboveground structures would be subject to grazing or 

trampling effects, due to the timing of the grazing season. There would likely be enough 

belowground spores, gametes, juveniles, etc., such that not all of any one occurrence 

would be affected by livestock trampling (USDA Forest Service 2005b). 

Although it is uncertain, these species of the genus Botrychium have persisted with 

disturbances in other areas of their range and have been documented to colonize 

disturbed areas (Farrar 2004). Hence, the low-level disturbance associated with grazing 

on all allotments, except the Water Draw Allotment, may create conditions suitable for 

colonization by Botrychium campestre and/or B. lineare. 

Properly managed livestock grazing may help reduce fine fuel build up, which may 

decrease the potential for large-scale fires that have the potential to adversely affect 

sensitive species habitat. Thus, an indirect effect on all allotments, except the Water 

Draw Allotment, could be protection of sensitive species habitat from large-scale fires. 

While on the Water Draw Allotment there may be a build-up of fine fuels that could 

increase the potential for large-scale fire due to the lack of grazing. 

Invasion by noxious weeds and other exotic plants can be detrimental to sensitive plant 

species as invasive species have the ability to out-compete desired plants. While properly 

managed livestock grazing, as proposed under alternative 2, may improve range 

conditions and lessen the likelihood of noxious weed invasion. There is also a slight 

chance the livestock may introduce noxious weeds by transporting seed on all allotments 

except the Water Draw Allotment (see “Rangelands” section). 

Species of Local Concern. Alternative 2 proposes to continue grazing as it is currently 

permitted. The probable habitat for these species would continue to receive the same 

level of livestock use they are currently receiving. These areas would not be enhanced if 

grazing continues as is currently authorized. In addition, there is a possible direct effect 

from livestock trampling if unknown individuals are present and the grazing continues as 

prescribed. 

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Sensitive. Alternative 3 would have the same effects as alternative 2, except as follows. 

The Water Draw Allotment would be grazed; therefore the effects stated above for the 

grazed allotments would apply to the Water Draw Allotment as well. 

Some current grazing practices, as described in alternative 2 (current management), 

would be changed to resolve grazing-related resource issues. While these changes are not 

expected to have direct effects on known occurrences of these two species, they may 

enhance the habitat for the species. 

Alternative 3 is based on the principle of applying adaptive management. By monitoring 

the conditions on the allotments and exercising the adaptive management options as 

needed to resolve grazing-related resource issues, desired conditions would be met or 

moved towards. As desired conditions (as identified in chapter 2) are met, the habitat for 

these two species would be enhanced. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

101 

Species of Local Concern. Under alternative 3, some current grazing practices would be 

changed to resolve grazing-related resource issues. Included are practices designed to 

reduce the livestock utilization of the moist forested sites and riparian areas in the French 

Creek Allotment. The probable habitat for these six species would be enhanced by the 

reduction in livestock use. There is a possible direct effect from livestock trampling if 

unknown individuals are present. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Sensitive Species and Species of Local Concern. The cumulative effects analysis area 

for these species is the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project area. Because of the uncertainty 

related to the species habitat preferences, there may be possible habitat for the species 

throughout the project area. Effects outside of this area are either minimal or cannot be 

tracked and defined. This analysis is bounded in time by 10 years into the past and 10 

years into the future, which allows for an adequate length of time to record vegetative 

changes. 

Current, on-going, and reasonably foreseeable activities within this area are shown in 

table 9. Removing timber and thinning existing stands of ponderosa pine may reduce the 

chance of large-scale fires that may threaten the sensitive plant species habitat. Removing 

timber and thinning existing stands of ponderosa pine may also create earlier successional 

conditions that would be beneficial to site colonization by wind-dispersed, sporeproducing Botrychium species, if the associated mycorrhizal species and other microsite 

conditions are present. 

Any past, present, or foreseeable future activity that causes soil disturbance has the 

potential to introduce and increase the rate of spread of noxious weeds and other exotic 

plants. This can be detrimental to sensitive and SOLC plant species, because invasive 

species have the ability to out-compete desired native plants. The herbicides used in 

noxious weed control can also be detrimental to Botrychium individuals if the aboveground portion of the plants is inadvertently exposed to the herbicides. 

An increase in the development and subdivision of private land in the area may lead to an 

increase in the introduction of exotic plants and noxious weeds. The increase in 

development of private land could result in direct impacts to sensitive plant species 

and/or their habitat if they occur in those specific development locations. 

In this project area, the primary impacts from recreational use to the sensitive plant 

species habitat are the negative direct impacts to the vegetation (i.e., removal of 

vegetation, soil compaction, introduction of invasive species) that result from off-road 

travel. 

All of the above uses are limited in intensity and duration, and therefore when combined 

with the alternatives analyzed, including the no-action alternative, would not result in 

measurable cumulative impacts to sensitive and SOLC plant species or their habitat. 

Pleated gentian, broadlipped twayblade, leathery grapefern, stiff clubmoss, narrowleaf 

sweet coltsfoot, and shining willow are likely to persist on the Forest (Forest Plan Phase 

II Amendment [USDA Forest Service 2005b]). All three alternatives are consistent with 

the Forest Plan for these species and/or their habitats. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

102 

Summary 

Implementation of alternative 1 would not result in direct effects to sensitive or SOLC 

species. There would be a short-term improvement in suitable habitat for all species, but 

an increased potential for a long term, indirect loss of habitat with increased fine fuel and 

increased risk of wildfire. Implementation of alternative 1 may adversely impact 7 

sensitive plants, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability range-wide. 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in localized, direct effects to sensitive and 

SOLC species habitat from livestock trampling and indirectly through degraded riparian 

habitat conditions in some areas. Implementation of alternative 2 may adversely impact 

seven sensitive plants, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability range-wide. 

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in localized, direct effects to sensitive and 

SOLC species from livestock trampling, minimized through project design features; and 

indirect beneficial impacts due to habitat improvement in riparian areas. Implementation 

of alternative 3 may adversely impact seven sensitive plants, but is not likely to result in a 

trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability range-wide. 

Alternative 3 provides the best opportunity to enhance habitat for sensitive species and 

SOLC that are found in riparian and/or moist forested sites, as well as protection of 

known occurrences of sensitive plants. Alternative 1 also provides opportunity for 

enhancement of those habitats, but the removal of livestock may result in an increase in 

fine fuels, increasing the potential for large-scale fires which may indirectly affect rare 

plant habitat. Alternative 2 does not provide the opportunity for habitat enhancement, 

while it does provide for the protection of known occurrences of R2 sensitive plants. 

Determination of Effects. Implementation of alternative 1, 2, or 3 may adversely impact 

sensitive plant individuals of Iowa moonwort, narrowleaf grapefern, yellow lady’s 

slipper, trailing clubmoss, large roundleaf orchid, highbush cranberry, and sphagnum 

narrow peatmoss, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area or a 

trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability range-wide. 

Wildlife _________________________________________ 

Methodology 

Wildlife species and population data were collected and compiled from field surveys, 

District wildlife observation data, South Dakota Natural Heritage Program, Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD), the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and 

Parks, literature reviews, communication with District personnel, and the Wildlife Report 

completed for the Phase II Amendment to the Black Hills National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 2005b, appendix C). Project 

area field surveys were completed in 2008 and 2009. Any observed Forest Service 

Region 2 sensitive species, species of local concern (SOLC), management indicator 

species (MIS), migratory birds, and Wyoming Partners in Flight (PIF) birds were 

recorded. Surveys for reptiles/amphibians were conducted in June and July and focused 

on areas near water (springs/seeps). Most of the riparian areas have been surveyed in 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

103 

past years for the presence of amphibians. Frest and Johannes (2002) conducted surveys 

for land snail species in this area in 1992 and 1999. Bird surveys have been conducted 

across the Black Hills National Forest including this project area (Panjabi 2001, 2003, 

2004, 2005; Beason et al. 2006; Hutton et al. 2007; Giroir et al. 2007; White and Giroir 

2009). 

Livestock grazing can result in changes in wildlife habitat quality; these changes can be 

both beneficial and adverse depending on the proximity of use to occupied habitat, season 

and duration of use, the sensitivity of species involved, and the habitat type affected. 

Habitat quality for the following groups of species will be used as an indicator to 

compare alternative effects: 

 Forest Service R2 sensitive wildlife species and SOLC 

 MIS 

 migratory birds and PIF 

 demand species (elk and mule deer) 

Federally listed wildlife species were reviewed for applicability to this project (list 

updated on September 2008 and accessed at 

http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/endsppbycounty.htm). No federally listed or 

proposed wildlife species, or their habitat, occurs in the project area. 

Affected Environment 

Sensitive. R2 sensitive species are species for which population viability is of concern, as 

evidenced by current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or 

by current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability (USDA Forest Service 

2009). All R2 sensitive wildlife species potentially occurring in the Black Hills National 

Forest were considered in the project area. Nineteen sensitive wildlife species occur in, or 

have the potential to occur in the project area, based on habitat preferences, as shown in 

table 14. All other species were dropped from further evaluation due to the lack of 

suitable habitat in the project area. 

Species of Local Concern. SOLC are species that do not meet the criteria for sensitive 

status. These include species with declining trends in only a portion of Region 2, or those 

that are important components of diversity in a local area, for example. Forest Service 

Manual 2622.01 mandates consideration of SOLC during project planning. Seventeen 

SOLC occur in or have the potential to occur in the project area, based on habitat 

preferences, as shown in table 14. 

Management Indicator Species. The Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Forest Plan-FEIS 

(USDA Forest Service 2005b) lists MIS that need to be considered during project-level 

planning. This list was reviewed to determine which species have habitat or populations 

present within the project area. Some MIS have other status (such as sensitive); when an 

MIS was also listed as a sensitive species, that species was evaluated in this document as 

a sensitive species. Population viability is not a concern for any MIS species not on the 

R2 sensitive species list. MIS relevant to this project area are listed in table 14. 

Maintenance or enhancement of habitat for MIS is a Forest goal, as outlined in the Forest 

Plan. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

104 

Migratory Birds. Many species of migratory birds are of international concern due to 

naturally small ranges, loss of habitat, observed population declines, and other factors. 

The Black Hills National Forest recognizes the ecological and economic importance of 

birds, and approaches bird conservation at several levels by implementing: (1) Forest 

Plan objectives, standards, and guidelines; (2) a Forest-wide bird monitoring program; 

and (3) site-specific mitigation and effects analyses for identified species of concern. 

Birds applicable to project-level conservation are identified by many sources, including 

the Endangered Species Act, the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list, the Black Hills 

National Forest MIS and SOLC list, internal and public scoping efforts, the USFWS 

Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) (USFWS 2008) and the Wyoming Bird 

Conservation Plan (PIF Plan) (Nicholoff 2003). The BCC 2008 publication partitions 

North America into 37 bird conservation regions. The Black Hills is included in Region 

17–Badlands and Prairies. Five species have potential to occur in the project area and are 

not already included as sensitive or SOLC; these are shown in table 14. 

Wyoming PIF. The Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0, was developed by 

Wyoming Partners in Flight as part of the international Partners in Flight effort. Birds of 

concern are placed in one of several levels. Level 1 is for bird species that clearly need 

conservation action (Nicholoff 2003); these were reviewed for applicability to this 

project. Of all Level 1 species with potential to occur in the project area, only one 

(Swainson’s hawk) is not analyzed as a sensitive species, SOLC or migratory bird in this 

section. 

Demand Species. Demand species are important local game animals which are not 

included in other emphasis groups above. Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer are two of 

these demand species, as shown in table 14. Rocky Mountain elk are commonly seen in 

the project area. Merriam’s wild turkeys are considered demand species but were not 

evaluated in detail for this project due to the fact that their primary habitat components in 

the project area (tree roosts and most food sources) are not affected by the presence of 

livestock. 

Management Area 5.4: Providing high-quality winter and transitional habitat for elk 

mule deer and habitat for other big game species (including turkey, white-tailed deer, 

pronghorn antelope, mountain lion and bighorn sheep) on Forest Service land is the 

emphasis for MA 5.4 (table 1). MA 5.4 makes up all of the Bull Flats and Tepee 

Allotments, all but 77 acres of the Water Draw Allotment, and all but 175 acres of the 

French Creek Allotment. Approximately 87 percent of the Lithograph Allotment is in 

MA 5.4 and approximately 30 percent of the Lower Beaver Allotment is in MA 5.4. 

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation considers the French Creek, Tepee, Lithograph, 

and Lower Beaver Allotments crucial year-round elk range (RMEF 2002). The 

Water Draw and Bull Flats Allotments are mostly within summer range habitat. The 

Lithograph and Lower Beaver Allotments also provide elk winter range. 

White-tailed deer are evaluated for this project as a MIS and bighorn sheep as a 

Sensitive species. Pronghorn antelope and mountain lion are not classified as Demand 

Species in the Forest Plan. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Table 14. Sensitive species, SOLC, MIS, migratory birds and PF, and demand species that occur or have the potential to occur Range 2010 Project Area, based on habitat preferences 

Species Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in ProjeForest Service SensitiveMammals Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 

Ovis canadensis canadensis 

Open habitats such as grasslands, talus slopes, and rock outcrops where forage plants are abundant and escape cover is nearby (Beecham et Al. 2007). 

Introduced to the Blacare approximately 385 Black Hills. Since 200been observed on the Beaver Allotment anTepee Allotment. The Southeast corner of thand the southwest coAllotment may have s(Benzon, T. 2010. SDBiologist; pers. comm

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Forages on insects in a variety of habitats including grasslands and 

forested areas. Roosts in a variety of structures including caves, mines, and buildings (Schmidt 2003a). 

Jewel Cave (which boAllotment) is a hibernspecies. This species the Water Draw, LoweAllotments. 

Townsend’s bigeared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Forages on insects in a variety of habitats including forested and wet areas. Roosts in a variety of structures including caves, mines, and 

buildings (Schmidt 2003b). 

Jewel Cave (which boAllotment) is a hibernspecies. This species the Tepee and Bull Flis one confirmed hibeFlats Allotment. 

Black-tailed prairie dog 

Cynomys ludovicianus 

Short-grass and mixed-grass prairies (USFWS 2008b). There is an active pra

tip of the Lithograph Aareas within the other provide suitable soils 

American marten 

Martes americana 

Spruce forests with complex, near-ground structure, extending into adjacent ponderosa pine stands (Buskirk 2002). 

Suitable habitat occurAllotment. 

Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Winter resident in the Black Hills and spring/fall migrant. Usually found near unfrozen water or carrion in winter (Tallman et al. 2002). 

There have been no rsightings during the bproject area. The prosuitable nesting habiteagles have been sigin all six allotments du

Northern Accipiter gentilis Forages in a variety of forested areas and small openings; nests Goshawks have been 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

106 

goshawk primarily in dense mature conifer forests (Erickson 1987). allotments. Territories 

occur on Bull Flats, FTepee, and Water Dra

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Prairies, open fields and marshes (Tallman et al. 2002). The open grasslands/

Lithograph, Lower BeDraw Allotments provnesting habitat; no kn

Burrowing owl Athene 

cunicularia 

Dry grasslands and pastures, usually associated with prairie dogs or ground squirrels (Tallman et al. 2002). 

No known occurrenceLithograph Allotment habitat. 

Flammulated owl 

Otus flammeolus Open ponderosa pine forests (McCallum 1994). Suitable habitat prese

no known occurrence

Lewis’s woodpecker 

Melanerpes lewis 

Open burned areas with large snags; oak and cottonwood forests (Anderson 2003, Panjabi 2003). 

Known to occur on thLithograph, and Wate

Black-backed woodpecker 

Picoides arcticus Burned areas with a high density of pre-burn snags; dense and/or 

mature forests with a high snag density (Anderson 2003, Panjabi 2003). 

Known to occur on thBeaver, Lithograph, TAllotments. 

American threetoed woodpecker 

Picoides dorsalis Almost exclusively in mature spruce forests (Giroir et al. 2007). Suitable habitat prese

Allotment. 

Loggerhead shrike 

Lanius ludovicianus

Open country with scattered, low deciduous thickets (Tallman et al. 2002). 

Potential habitat in the Beaver, Tepee, and Wno known occurrence

Grasshopper sparrow 

Ammodramus savannarum 

Found almost exclusively in native mixed-grass prairies (Panjabi 2003). 

Known to occur on thand Water Draw Allot

Reptiles and Amphibians Northern leopard frog 

Rana pipiens Riparian and wetland areas for tadpoles, subadults, and breeding 

adults; upland habitats for foraging adults (Smith 2003). 

Known to occur on thand French Creek All

Black Hills redbelly snake 

Storeria occipitomaculatapahasapae 

Wet meadows, woodlands, and forest-meadow edge habitat in the Black Hills (Smith and Stephans 2003). 

Known to occur on thLower Beaver Allotme

Invertebrates Cooper’s mountain snail 

Oreohelix strigosa cooperi 

Lowland wooded or riparian areas on limestone soils (Frest and Johannes 2002). 

One known site on thone on the Lower Bealimited suitable habitaLower Beaver and FreFrench Creek drainagmost suitable habitat. 

Regal fritillary butterfly 

Speyeria idalia Tall-grass prairie and extensive grasslands with violets (Royer and 

Marrone 1992). 

Observed on the Lowsuitable habitat occurLower Beaver, TepeeAllotments. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

SOLC Mammals Northern longeared myotis Myotis septentrionalis Wooded riparian zone in badlands and prairies to higher elevation coniferous and deciduous woodlands. Known to occur on th

Water Draw Allotmensuitable habitat. 

Small-footed myotis

Myotis ciliolabru Variety of habitats ranging from arid desert and badland habitats to 

riparian zones and grasslands. It is usually associated with rocky areas like bluffs, dissected breaks, ridges, cliffs, and major rock outcroppings within these habitats. 

Suitable habitat prese

Long-eared myotis 

Myotis evotis Associated with coniferous montane habitats and has been reported 

foraging among trees and over woodland ponds (Schmidt 2003c). Limited data suggest that the long-eared myotis uses ponderosa pine snags as summer and maternity roosts in other regions (Rabe et al. 1998; Vonhof and Barclay 1997). 

Suitable habitat prese

Long-legged myotis

Myotis volans Associated with montane forest. In the Black Hills, this species 

occurs primarily at elevations between 4,500 and 6,500 feet (Turner 1974). This species has been documented using ponderosa pine snags as summer/maternity roosts in the Black Hills (Cryan et al. 2001). 

Suitable habitat prese

Northern flying squirrel

Glaucomys sabrinus 

A wide variety of woodland habitats typically dominated by conifers or mixed coniferous/deciduous forests (Wells-Gosling and Heaney 1984). Optimal northern flying squirrel habitat has been reported as cool, moist, mature forest with abundant standing and down snags. It is often most abundant near surface water (swamps and streams) (NatureServe 2009). 

Suitable habitat prese

Meadow jumping mouse

Zapus hudsonius campestris 

Associated with riparian habitats along small streams in meadows and habitats beneath forests with an understory of deciduous shrubs, grasses, forbs and fallen logs; it is presumed to disperse primarily along stream corridors. 

Known to occur on thand suitable riparian hallotments. 

Birds Sharp-shinned hawk 

Accipiter striatus Occur in most forest types across their range; nest almost exclusively 

in conifers, with the exception of some densely leafed deciduous trees that also provide nest concealment (Platt 1976; Reynolds et al. 1982; Joy 1990). 

Known to occur on thand Water Draw Allotprovide suitable habit

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi Known to nest in riparian, conifer, and aspen forests. Known to occur on th

Tepee Allotments; all suitable habitat. 

Broad-winged hawk 

Buteo platypterus 

Deciduous, mixed, or occasionally coniferous forests (Johnsgard 1990); forage in mature to old-growth forests, along forest streams, roads, and openings (Stephens and Anderson 2003). 

Suitable habitat prese

Northern sawwhet owl Aegolius acadicus Nests tend to be in mature forest, while dense sapling-pole-sized stands are preferred for roosting (Johnson and Anderson 2003). Known to occur on th

Tepee Allotments; all 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

108 

Saw-whet owls also utilize dense riparian woodlands for roosting. This species often forages along forest edges, preying on small mammals (Cannings 1993). 

suitable habitat. 

Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea Inhabit mature yellow-pine communities throughout the West 

(Ghalambor 2003). Pygmy nuthatches prefer old or mature undisturbed forests, but are also known to use open, park-like stands of ponderosa pine (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001). 

Known to occur on thand Water Draw Allotprovide suitable habit

Invertebrates Atlantis fritillary butterfly 

Speyeria atlantis pahasapae 

Riparian areas adjacent to openings, moist meadows and in boreal forests (NatureServe 2009). Endemic to the Black Hills. 

Suitable habitat prese

Tawny crescentbutterfly 

Phycoides batesii 

Open meadows, stream bottoms, along roads, trails, and riparian woodlands (Stefanich 2001). Found also in mesic forest corridors across an ecotone between mixed-grass meadows or prairie grasslands to adjacent woodlands (Royer and Marrone 1992). 

3 confirmed locations Allotment in 1991. Thfrom the French Creerecords). All six allotmhabitat. 

Callused vertigo (land snail) 

Vertigo arthuri Wet, relatively undisturbed forest with closed canopied white spruce 

or ponderosa pine with a varied understory. 

Known to occur in sevthe project area. 

Mystery vertigo(land snail) 

Vertigo paradoxa 

Rich lowland wooded sites, quite often in the white spruce community, but occasionally in the ponderosa pine community. The forest canopy is generally closed or nearly so, with well-developed litter and a rich understory. 

Suitable habitat prese

Frigid ambersnail(land snail) 

Catinella gelida Usually found on limestone, but also on schist soils; colonies were 

often found in somewhat dry wooded limestone talus, generally near the slope base. They were most often found in rather open ponderosa pine forest. 

Known to occur on thAllotments; suitable hallotments as well. 

Striate disc (land snail) 

Discus shimekii Most often found in litter in rich mesic forest, generally on shaded, 

north-facing slope bases, often bordering or ranging slightly onto 

stream floodplains. 

Suitable habitat existsfrom the Lithograph A

MIS White-tailed deer 

Odocoileus virginianus 

Very adaptable species that can live in almost any habitat. In South Dakota, this includes grasslands, wetlands, and woodlands (Higgens et al. 2000). 

Known to occur. 

Goldencrowned kinglet 

Regulus satrapa Found almost exclusively in white spruce habitat, but occasionally in 

habitats with a spruce component (Panjabi 2003). 

Known to occur on Fr

Grasshopper sparrow

Ammodramus savannarum 

Found almost exclusively in native mixed-grass prairies (Panjabi 2003). 

Known to occur on LoWater Draw Allotmen

Black-backed woodpecker

Picoides arcticus Burned areas with a high density of pre-burn snags; dense and/or 

mature forests with a high snag density (Anderson 2003; Panjabi 2003). 

Known to occur. 

Brown creeper 

Certhia americana 

In the Black Hills, white spruce and late successional pine appears to be the most important habitat type for this species (Panjabi 2001, 

Known to occur. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

2003). 

Ruffed grouse Bonasa 

umbellus 

Variable aged aspen stands, other hardwoods and pine forests provide habitat. Winter habitat is almost exclusively aspen (Tallman et al. 2002; DeGraaf et al. 1991). 

Known to occur. 

Song sparrow Melospiza 

melodia 

Streamside thickets, particularly shrubby willows, are required for habitat. Occasionally found in adjacent spruce habitat (Panjabi 2003). 

Suitable habitat prese

Migratory Birds Golden eagle Aquila 

chrysaetos 

Open country from desert grasslands to above timberline. Usually avoids densely forested areas. Typical habitat is grass-shrub, shrubsapling and/or open coniferous forests (Johnsgard 1990). 

Known to occur and s

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Open, treeless areas such as brush-desert, desert grassland, and 

other arid regions with nearby cliffs for nesting (Johnsgard 1990); prefer to nest on cliffs with a sheltered ledge. 

Known to occur and s

Upland sandpiper 

Bartramia longicauda 

Open grasslands that range from flats with little vegetation to rich paturelands, hayfields, and alfalfa fields. Typically nests in a depression on the ground. 

Known to occur and s

Red-headed woodpecker 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus 

Deciduous woodlands, especially with beech or oak, lowland and upland habitats, river bottoms, open woods, groves of dead and dying trees, orchards, parks, open agricultural country, savanna-like grasslands with scattered trees, and forest edge and along roadsides. 

Known to occur and s

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus 

Open ponderosa pine forests with small scattered trees. However, it prefers pinyon-juniper woodlands of the foothills. 

Known to occur and s

PIF Swainson’s hawk 

Buteo swainsoni Mixed to short grassland habitats with scattered trees. Agricultural 

areas, including irrigated alfalfa fields and pasture, are also preferred for foraging of visible prey. 

No known occurrenceand foraging habitat p

Demand Species Rocky Mountain elk 

Cercus elaphus nelsoni 

A wide variety of vegetation types with a preference for forested riparian areas, forested stringers in meadows, and deciduous stands of birch or aspen (SAIC 2003). 

Known to occur. 

Mule deer Odocoilus 

hemionus 

Open, rugged habitat; meadows and other grass cover types provide forage. Mountain mahogany habitat in the southern Black Hills may play an important role in providing mule deer habitat. 

Known to occur. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

110 

The Forest has committed (through Forest Plan objective 217) to managing habitat for a 

total of 4,350 elk, which is the combined population objective establish by the two State 

game agencies in 1996 (USDA Forest Service 2005b). 

The Black Hills deer population is comprised of approximately 75 percent white-tailed 

deer and 25 percent mule deer (Parrish et al. 1996). There is very little research available 

on mule deer ecology. Throughout much of the Black Hills, there is not a clear habitat 

distinction between the two species and their ranges overlap in many areas (Parrish et al. 

1996). Mule deer are commonly seen on the Lithograph, Lower Beaver, Tepee, and 

Water Draw Allotments. Providing high-quality winter and transitional habitat for mule 

deer on Forest Service lands is an emphasis for MA 5.4. 

The Forest has committed (through objective 217) to managing habitat for a combined 

white-tailed and mule deer population of 60,000 animals in South Dakota. This figure 

matches the South Dakota Game, Fish and Park’s population objective for the Black Hills 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a). 

Environmental Consequences 

Table 15 provides a summary of the expected direct/indirect and cumulative effects to 

sensitive species, SOLC, MIS, migratory birds, PIF, and demand species. The Wildlife 

Report and Biological Assessment and Evaluation provide more detail on the evaluation 

of effects to each species (Clark 2010a and 2010b). 

Implementation of alternative 1 would result in improvement in riparian-dependent 

species habitat; this would be greater under alternative 1 than under alternatives 2 or 3. 

There would also be an increase in upland ungulate browse and bird nesting and deer 

fawning cover. Implementation of alternative 1 would result in a determination of no 

impact to 16 sensitive species and beneficial impacts to 3 sensitive species. All 17 

SOLC and 7 MIS populations would persist and habitat conditions would improve due to 

removal of grazing impacts. All 5 migratory bird populations and 1 PIF population would 

remain stable and habitat conditions would improve due to removal of grazing impacts. 

Elk and deer populations would remain stable and habitat conditions would improve due 

to removal of grazing impacts. 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in no change in riparian-dependent species 

habitat or upland habitat; existing riparian habitat conditions would not improve. 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in a determination of no impact to 12 

sensitive species. Implementation of alternative 2 may impact 7 sensitive species, but 

would not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. All 17 SOLC 

and 7 MIS populations would persist. All 5 migratory bird populations and 1 PIF 

population would remain stable, but direct effects from nest trampling and cover 

reduction would continue. Elk and deer populations would remain stable, but localized, 

adverse effects would continue due to loss of some forage and cover from livestock use. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Table 15. Summary of effects to wildlife species by alternative 

Species 

Alternative 1-No Action No Grazing 

Alternative 2–Current Management 

Alternative 3–Proposed Action with Adaptive Management 

Summfor al

Forest Service Sensitive Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 

No direct effects. Habitat overlap with livestock in the project area is slight. With no grazing, grasses and forbs along with some browse species may see a short-term increase. In the long term, nutrition and palatability of forage may decrease. The quality and extent of water sources may improve, particularly in the summer months, in the absence of livestock grazing. No cumulative effects are expected. 

Direct effects are not expected. In drought years, potential water sources may be decreased by watering cattle. Bighorn sheep and livestock compete for forage in some areas. Heavy utilization by livestock may cause bighorn sheep to be displaced in the search for forage. Displacement puts the sheep at a disadvantage by moving into unfamiliar territory which causes overall stress and may lead to malnutrition (T. Benzon, SDGFP, Big Game Biologist, pers. comm. 2010). Heavy utilization could be detrimental by causing noxious-weed establishment and spread or through consumption or trampling of important 

forbs. Low to moderate utilization levels by livestock could be beneficial for the bighorn sheep by opening grass cover and allowing the establishment and growth of forbs. Adherence to current utilization standards (FP Standard 

2505) should provide adequate forage for the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Habitat loss or degradation through heavy livestock utilization could add cumulatively to other impacts influencing this species in the project area. Pine encroachment has decreased grassland acreage in the past and continues to be a concern in the project area. With adherence to allowable utilization standards, cumulative effects to the Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are not expected. 

Altern

Altern

adverbut noof vianor caFederAll altconse(Fore
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

112 

Species 

Alternative 1-No Action No Grazing 

Alternative 2–Current Management 

Alternative 3–Proposed Action with Adaptive Management 

Summfor al

Black-tailed prairie dog 

No direct effects. With no grazing, indirect and cumulative effects include development of taller grasses which could cause prairie dogs to leave the current town for shorter grass habitat (possibly on adjacent private land). However, prairie dogs and other wildlife species may keep the grass short. 

No direct effects from livestock. Livestock grazing could indirectly improve prairie dog habitat in primary grazing areas by reducing grass height and density. This could encourage colonization from nearby towns. Cumulatively, livestock grazing in the future could lead to expansion of black-tailed prairie dog habitat. Recreational shooting does occur within prairie dog towns. There is always a risk of disease (sylvatic plague) that can eliminate local prairie dog populations. Numerous wildfires have influenced five of the six allotments, mainly by creating openings, and increasing the quantity and quality of grassland forage available to livestock and wildlife. This increase in grassland has been beneficial to the black-tailed prairie dog. Future wildfires may be beneficial as well for this species 

All AltThe Fobjecthe Fo300 ain at l(USD

Cooper’s mountain snail 

No direct effects are expected under this alternative. The possibility of mortality due to livestock trampling is eliminated. Indirect effects include increased vegetation and ground cover and an increase in suitable habitat. 

Direct effects possible from livestock trampling. Indirect effects through livestock use in riparian areas that can degrade riparian conditions (Bock et al. 1992; Frest and Johannes 2002). Removal of vegetation adjacent to snail colonies may increase predation. Even light grazing appears to have substantial negative impacts on land snail diversity and abundance (Frest and Johannes 2002). Past actions (fire suppression, other forest management activities) have resulted in site-specific changes in suitable habitat; in some areas mesic habitats have reduced and in other areas, these have increased. Management of 

noxious weeds could adversely impact snails since many herbicides are toxic to land snails (Frest and Johannes 2002), but this is minimized through adherence to Forest Plan standards (e.g., standard 3103e). Past and current offroad motorized traffic has negatively impacted some snail habitat, particularly in the French Creek Allotment. Because alternative 3 provides enhanced protection and management of riparian areas, these direct/indirect impacts would be lessened with implementation of alternative 3. 

AlternAlternadverbut noof vianor caFeder
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Species 

Alternative 1-No Action No Grazing 

Alternative 2–Current Management 

Alternative 3–Proposed Action with Adaptive Management 

Summfor al

Regal fritillary butterfly 

No direct effects; possibility of mortality is eliminated. Indirect effects include habitat improvement through an increase in understory grass and forbs. However, larval host plants (i.e., 

violets) for butterfly species could decline in the absence of grazing. 

Direct effects possible from livestock grazing that include crushing butterfly larvae or cocoons and/or covering larvae with manure piles. Indirect effects include a possible increase or decrease in forbs needed by the butterfly species for foraging. The quality and extent of potential watering sources may decrease with cattle grazing particularly in summer months. Utilization by livestock could be beneficial for this butterfly species by opening grass cover and allowing the establishment and growth of violets and nectar-producing forbs. Heavy utilization could be detrimental by causing noxious-weed establishment and spread or through consumption or trampling of important 

forbs. In the future, regal fritillary butterfly habitat could be cumulatively affected by drought, conifer encroachment in meadows, increases in canopy overstory, and noxious weed infestation. 

AlternAlternadverbut noof vianor caFederBoth aalong and fuexpecimprograsscondi
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

114 

Species 

Alternative 1-No Action No Grazing 

Alternative 2–Current Management 

Alternative 3–Proposed Action with Adaptive Management 

Summfor al

Riparian/aquatic species (fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, northern leopard frog, Black Hills red belly snake)

There are no direct effects expected under this alternative since there would be no livestock grazing. Potential indirect effects to bats include changes in insect prey populations; some may increase with no grazing (due to increases in herbaceous growth and water availability) and others may decrease (e.g., Lepidoptera). Indirect effects to frogs and snakes include improvements in riparian areas and aquatic habitats with removal of grazing. Available habitat would improve. Because direct/indirect effects would be minimal, no cumulative effects to bats are expected. Past actions have affected riparian habitat quality both positively and negatively. Cumulative effects would be beneficial, overall. 

Direct effects to bats are minimized by implementation of project design features for escape ramps. No direct/indirect effects to bat roosts due to livestock. Indirect effects to bats 

would occur due to the removal of 50% of annual herbaceous growth, which may reduce some insect prey; this effect would be minor because residual levels would be provided (standards/guidelines 2502-2506). Leopard frogs and red belly snakes could be adversely affected directly through possible livestock trampling in suitable habitat (Smith 2003), which can affect many aquatic habitat conditions (Belsky et al.1999; Kauffman et al. 1983; Kauffman and Krueger 1984; Isaak et al. 2003) and increase predation. Direct and indirect effects may be decreased with implementation of project design features. Under alternatives 2 and 3, riparian exclosures would be maintained and monitoring would be accomplished in riparian areas. Under proposed riparian habitat protections and changes in management for alternative 3, habitat for sensitive riparian species would improve. Indirect effects are minimized through a wide variety of standards and guidelines, watershed conservation practices, and State BMPs that protect riparian areas. Numerous objectives, standards, and guidelines strive to maintain or enhance the quality and/or quantity of existing riparian communities, wetlands and wet-meadow areas. Cumulatively, future riparian conditions could be affected by drought, conifer encroachment in riparian areas, increases in canopy overstory, and noxious weed infestation. Excessive livestock grazing added to these effects could result in moderate to severe adverse effects, but this is 

minimized through adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines; excessive grazing is not expected away from water sources with either alternative. Alternative 3 would result in less adverse cumulative effects than Alternative 2. 

All Altbat spAlternto norred beAlternadverleopasnake to resthe pltrend 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Species 

Alternative 1-No Action No Grazing 

Alternative 2–Current Management 

Alternative 3–Proposed Action with Adaptive Management 

Summfor al

Predatory species (bald eagle, American marten, northern goshawk, northern harrier, burrowing owl, flammulated owl, loggerhead shrike)

The removal of livestock from these allotments would have no direct effects to these predatory species. Potential indirect effects of removing 

50% of annual herbaceous growth is eliminated, which would likely increase prey availability (increased prey productivity and survival) within riparian areas and upland meadows. Prey species would likely be harder to detect, due to increased cover. The overall available habitat for predatory species would not change substantially if livestock grazing is no longer allowed on these allotments; however, some foraging habitat would be enhanced. 

There are no direct effects expected to the bald eagle, American marten, northern goshawk, burrowing owl, 

flammulated owl, and loggerhead shrike from livestock grazing. There is potential for direct effects to northern harriers if nesting in the project area. Cattle may possibly trample eggs and/or nestlings causing mortality. Indirectly, preferred nesting habitat of the northern harrier may be affected due to grazing. Adherence to current utilization standards (Forest Plan standard 2505) should provide adequate cover for prey species persistence, and therefore, implementation of the proposed action should not cause any indirect effects to the bald eagle, American marten, northern goshawk, burrowing owl, flammulated owl and loggerhead shrike. Continued livestock grazing at moderate levels would also help keep the vegetation structure relatively short and at a desirable level for the burrowing owl. Since there would be no direct effects and no indirect effects are expected to these species, with adherence to the allowable utilization standard, there would be no cumulative effects for the bald eagle, American marten, northern goshawk, burrowing owl, flammulated owl and loggerhead shrike. The northern harrier may suffer direct and/or indirect effects from livestock grazing in the nesting season. Cumulative effects to the northern harrier would include a potential loss of nesting habitat in the future which could be more detrimental due to drought conditions in the project area. 

AlternAlternimpacmarteburrowowl amay aindividbut is loss oarea, Feder
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

116 

Species 

Alternative 1-No Action No Grazing 

Alternative 2–Current Management 

Alternative 3–Proposed Action with Adaptive Management 

Summfor al

Insectivorous birds (Lewis’s woodpecker, blackbacked woodpecker, American three-toed woodpecker, grasshopper sparrow)

There are no direct or indirect effects expected under this alternative. The overall amount of available habitat for these species would not change substantially if livestock grazing is no longer allowed on these allotments. No grazing would likely decrease Lepidoptera insect species over time as grasses expand and forbs, needed for larval host plants, decrease. However, often these species would switch from one source of insect prey to another as these sources become available. Lack of grazing may improve the quality of grasshopper sparrow habitat by not removing 50% of the annual growth resulting in taller grasses. However, this species does require bare ground for foraging. Lack of grazing may in time increase the amount of ground cover and result in a decrease in bare ground. Since there would be no direct or indirect effects to woodpeckers under any alternative, there would be no cumulative effects. 

There are no direct effects expected to the Lewis’s woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, or American threetoed woodpecker from cattle and livestock grazing. Snags would not likely be affected by the presence of cattle grazing. However, nests of grasshopper sparrows may incur incidental trampling. Amount and condition of grasshopper sparrow nesting habitat could indirectly be affected by over-grazing; however excessive grazing would not occur under 3 due to adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Livestock grazing can help to maintain some areas of bare ground thereby maintaining foraging habitat for grasshopper sparrow. Indirect effects include the potential to remove 50% of annual herbaceous growth, which may reduce some insect prey availability within riparian areas and upland meadows. The understory structure can influence the abundance and availability of many species of insects including Coleoptera, Lepidoptera and Orthoptera. Reduced understory vegetation could affect the abundance of insect prey species available for foraging. Livestock grazing can reduce the abundance of 

these insects by removing vegetative cover necessary for shelter, breeding, and feeding. Often these species will switch from one source of insect prey to another as these sources become available. However, this should not create a detectable decrease in prey because Phase II standards will be met, limiting vegetation utilization and providing residual levels (standards/guidelines 2502-2506) for insect prey. Since there would be no direct or indirect effects to woodpeckers under any alternative (with adherence to standard 2505, the allowable utilization standard), there would be no cumulative effects. 

All AltwoodAlternto graAlternadvergrassnot likviabilinor caFeder
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Species 

Alternative 1-No Action No Grazing 

Alternative 2–Current Management 

Alternative 3–Proposed Action with Adaptive Management 

Summfor al

SOLC Riparian species (Atlantis fritillary, tawny crescent butterfly, meadow jumping mouse)

No mortality due to livestock trampling. Habitat improvement due to removal of grazing in riparian areas 

Possible mortality of butterfly larvae and meadow jumping mice through livestock trampling and use. Riparian cover and the quality and extent of water sources, particularly in the summer months, could decrease with continued livestock grazing. Proposed French Creek improvements under alternative 3 would improve habitat for these species more than alternative 2. 

Assumstandwould alternpersis(Phas

Snails (callused vertigo, mystery vertigo, frigid ambersnail and striate disc)

The possibility of mortality due to livestock trampling is eliminated and snail habitat would not be negatively impacted due to livestock. 

Mortality to snails possible from trampling. Cattle grazing 

may reduce riparian vegetation and adversely affect snail habitat conditions. Alternative 3 should enhance riparian snail habitat with new riparian exclosures. 

Assumstandwould alternpersis(Phas

Predator bird species (sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, broad-winged hawk, and northern saw-whet owl)

The overall available habitat for predatory species would not change substantially; however, some foraging habitat would be enhanced. 

Livestock grazing would remove annual herbaceous growth, which may reduce prey availability within riparian areas and meadows; however, with adherence to allowable use standards this removal should not be excessive. Alternative 3 would provide more riparian habitat for prey due to planned new exclosure areas. 

Assumstandwould alternpersis(Phas

Insectivore species (pygmy nuthatch, northern long-eared myotis, small-footed myotis, long-eared myotis, and longlegged myotis) 

There are no direct effects expected under this alternative. There may be effects to these species due to a change in insect (prey) habitat and water sources. 

Pine trees, hibernacula, day roosts, maternity roosts or snags would not likely be affected by the presence of cattle grazing. See black-backed woodpecker above for effects. 

Same effects as Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, any new permanent or temporary water developments placed in new locations to improve livestock distribution should improve riparian conditions and provide additional bat foraging habitat and watering sites. 

Assumstandwould alternpersis(Phas
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

118 

Species 

Alternative 1-No Action No Grazing 

Alternative 2–Current Management 

Alternative 3–Proposed Action with Adaptive Management 

Summfor al

Northern flying squirrel 

The overall available foraging habitat for this squirrel may improve when pastures are not grazed on these allotments. 

Direct effects include mortality from barbed wire fences and drowning in stock tanks. Potential effects to foraging habitat. 

Assumstandwould alternpersis(Phas

MIS White-tailed deer Beneficial effects to riparian/hardwood 

habitats used by deer, possible longterm adverse effects to forage quality. Removal of fences and gates may benefit deer. 

Loss of forage and fawning cover to livestock. Displacement due to livestock and associated activities. 

Same effects as Alternative 2; however, some riparian areas would improve due to exclosure fencing and movement/installation of stock tanks and dugouts.Forage quality in the uplands may improve over the long-term with acceptable levels of livsetock grazing. 

Whitepersisaltern

Golden-crowned kinglet 

No effects expected to spruce habitat. No direct effects are expected to golden-crowned kinglet 

habitat. However, enhanced riparian conditions under alternative 3 would improve habitat. 

Goldelikely under 

Grasshopper sparrow 

No effects expected. Possible beneficial effects with more grasses available. 

Loss of nesting cover and possible direct mortality due to livestock trampling on all allotments except Water Draw. 

Same effects as Alternative 2 on all Allotments, including Water Draw since it would be grazed under Alternative 3. 

Assumutilizaall alteForessparrostable

Black-backed woodpecker 

Alternative1 would have no direct or indirect effects and would thus have no impact to black-backed woodpeckers. 

Removal of 50% of annual herbaceous growth may reduce some insect prey availability within riparian areas and upland meadows. 

Same effects as alternative 2. However, alternative 3 includes fencing new areas and expanding existing fences. This action may enhance habitats and increase insect prey, available for woodpeckers, in these areas. 

AssumstandalternForeswoodremaiBlackare likFores. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Species 

Alternative 1-No Action No Grazing 

Alternative 2–Current Management 

Alternative 3–Proposed Action with Adaptive Management 

Summfor al

Brown creeper Habitat for this species would not 

change if livestock grazing is no longer allowed on these allotments. 

No direct or indirect effects are expected Assum

standwould brown remai

Ruffed grouse Alternative 1 provides the best habitat 

for the ruffed grouse due to enhancement of aspen regeneration both short and long term. 

Direct mortality in nests possible from trampling. Adverse effects to food source and cover for ruffed grouse. 

Same effects as Alternative 2; however, under Alternative 3, new exclosure fences would be built, primarily around riparian areas (this is often where hardwoods are found). 

The loruffed Due tlikely assoc

Song sparrow No mortality due to livestock trampling. 

Alternative1 provides the most benefit to the song sparrow. It would allow for more riparian shrub growth and create better riparian conditions overall. 

Possible mortality of chicks due to trampling. Adverse effects to riparian species that utilize understory to midstory vegetation for cover, feeding or building nests. 

Same effects as Alternative 2. The French Creek fence and other proposed riparian fences should provide enhanced habitat for the song sparrow and other species dependent on riparian areas. Alternative 3 would provide more enhanced riparian conditions than Alternative 2. 

AssumstandalternForespopulThe spersis

Migratory Birds Predator bird species (golden eagle and prairie falcon)

Overall available habitat for predatory species would not change substantially; however, some foraging habitat would be enhanced. 

Livestock grazing would remove annual herbaceous growth, which may reduce prey availability in grasslands however, with adherence to allowable use standards this removal should not be excessive. 

AssumstandalternForesprairie remai

Upland sandpiper No direct effects expected under this 

alternative. Indirectly, taller grasses may increase over the long-term providing improved nesting habitat but preferred forage for sandpipers may decrease over the long-term in the absence of some level of livestock grazing . 

Mortality possible due to nest trampling. Reduction of cover and insect prey in grasslands. 

Same effects as Alternative 2. Alternative 3 proposes moving 50 cow/calf pairs to the Water Draw Allotment from the French Creek Allotment. This may create some preferred foraging habitat, but increase trampling. 

AssumstandalternForespopul
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

120 

Species 

Alternative 1-No Action No Grazing 

Alternative 2–Current Management 

Alternative 3–Proposed Action with Adaptive Management 

Summfor al

Red-headed woodpecker 

Alternative1 would have no direct or indirect effects and would thus have no impact to red-headed woodpeckers. 

Removal of 50% of annual herbaceous growth may reduce some insect prey availability within riparian areas and upland meadows. 

Same effects as Alternative 2. However, Alternative 3 includes fencing new areas and expanding existing fences. This action may enhance habitats and increase insect prey, available for woodpeckers, in these areas. 

AssumstandalternForeswoodremai

Pinyon jay No effects are expected to this bird 

species under the no grazing alternative. 

Grazing is not expected to impact the pinyon jay or its variable habitat. 

AssumstandalternForespopul

PIF Swainson’s hawk Overall available habitat for predatory 

species would not change substantially; however, some foraging habitat would be enhanced. 

Adverse effects to willows, nesting habitat. Livestock grazing would remove annual herbaceous growth, which may reduce prey availability in grasslands. 

AssumstandalternForespopul

Demand Species Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer 

Beneficial effects to riparian/hardwood habitats used by elk/deer, possible long-term adverse effects to forage quality. Removal of fences /gates would benefit deer/elk. 

Loss of forage and fawning /calving cover to livestock. Displacement due to livestock and associated activities. 

Same effects as Alternative 2; however, some riparian areas would improve due to exclosure fencing and movement/installation of stock tanks and dugouts. Fencing can effect deer and elk movement but the benefit to riparian habitat improvement would outweigh the small amount of fencing proposed; fence impacts would be minimized with implementation of project design features. Upland forage quality could improve over the long-term with grazing at appropriate levels. 

AssumstandalternForespopul
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

121 

Implementation of alternative 3 would improve habitat for riparian-dependent species; 

this improvement would be greater than under alternative 2. Implementation of 

alternative 3 would result in a determination of no impact to 13 sensitive species. 

Implementation of alternative 3 may impact six sensitive species, but would not result in 

a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. All 17 SOLC and 7 MIS populations 

would persist and habitat would improve due to riparian area protections and 

management changes. All 5 migratory bird populations and 1 PIF species would remain 

stable and habitat would improve due to riparian area protections and management 

changes. Elk and deer populations would remain stable and habitat would improve due to 

riparian area protections, improvement in forage quality and management changes. 

Under alternative 3 (proposed action), more riparian/resource areas would be protected 

from livestock use. The French Creek pasture within the French Creek Allotment would 

benefit greatly from this alternative. Portions of the creek would be excluded from 

livestock use permanently and the remainder would be monitored for use after a period of 

rest. Therefore, those species using riparian areas (such as northern leopard frog, song 

sparrow, land snails, Black Hills redbelly snake) would benefit from management under 

alternative 3 when compared to alternative 2. While some species can be negatively 

affected by additional fencing (e.g. elk and deer), the benefit to riparian habitat 

improvement would outweigh the small amount of fencing proposed; fence impacts 

would be minimized with implementation of project design features. Alternative 3 would 

be able to move towards Forest riparian habitat objectives and meet Forest standards and 

guidelines more quickly than alternative 2. Riparian/aquatic species would see the most 

benefits under alternative 1 (no grazing). Between alternatives 2 and 3, riparian species 

would see the most benefit under alternative 3. Alternative 3 better meets the purpose 

and need for this project when compared to alternative 2. 

The differences in upland habitat between alternatives 2 and 3 would be less noticeable. 

The Water Draw Allotment has been livestock-free for several years. Under alternative 

3, 50 cow/calf pairs would be permitted in this allotment. They would be removed from 

the French Creek Allotment. This would benefit habitats in the French Creek Allotment. 

The six riparian areas on the Water Draw Allotment would be protected from livestock 

use under Alternative 3. The uplands in the Water Draw Allotment may benefit from 

grazing under Alternative 3; thatch is currently dense and this would improve with 

grazing as would the rejuvenation of grasses and forbs with ungulate grazing. Under 

alternative 1 (in all allotments other than Water Draw, which is currently not grazed), 

more browse plants and fawning/calving cover would be available for wild ungulates 

when compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, browse species and 

fawning/calving cover would continue to be available for ungulates. Some decline in 

browse and cover could occur when livestock are re-introduced to the Water Draw 

Allotment under Alternative 3. Birds, needing shrubs and ground cover for nesting, 

could see benefits under Alternative 1 in five of the allotments. Under Alternative 2, the 

Water Draw Allotment would continue to not be grazed and therefore upland bird habitat 

would remain suitable. Populations, however, would remain stable under Alternative 3. 

Table 15 summarizes the effects to all wildlife species/groups of species analyzed. 

Determinations are based on meeting Forest standards and guidelines. Refer to the 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

122 

Wildlife Report and Wildlife Biological Assessment and Evaluation for detailed 

evaluations (Clark 2010a and 2010b). 

Fisheries _______________________________________ 

Methodology 

Fish species occurrence in the analysis area was based upon the best available data 

including Ford (1988), Isaak et al. (2003), the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 

and Parks (SDGFP) Stream Fisheries Database (2009), and Belica and Nibbelink (2006). 

A site visit was conducted in May 2008 on the French Creek Allotment to compare 

existing conditions to desired conditions, with an emphasis on aquatic/riparian areas. This 

section is compiled from information contained in the Fisheries Report prepared for this 

project (Hirtzel 2010). 

Livestock grazing primarily affects fisheries through the modification of aquatic and 

riparian habitat. In order to compare alternatives, the following measurable indicators 

have been developed: 

 changes in fish habitat quality and stream connectivity 

There are no federally threatened, endangered, or proposed fish species known to occur 

or likely to be affected by management activities on the Black Hills National Forest nor 

any designated critical habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). 

The finescale dace, lake chub, and mountain sucker are Region 2 sensitive species that 

are known to occur on the Black Hills National Forest. The mountain sucker is also 

designated as a management indicator species (MIS). Stream surveys conducted by the 

SDGFP in 1994 and 2004 did not collect mountain suckers in the analysis area. 

Therefore, range management activities in this analysis area would have no impact on the 

mountain sucker given its absence in the analysis area. This project would have no effect 

on the Forest-wide population or habitat trend for the mountain sucker (objective 238d). 

Neither the finescale dace (Phoxinus neogaeus) nor the lake chub occur in the analysis 

area (Isaak et al. 2003). Subsequently, there would be no impact to either the finescale 

dace or the lake chub. 

This effects analysis assumes that funding is available to implement the proposed action, 

that implementation and effectiveness monitoring occurs, and any subsequent adaptive 

management actions that may be needed are taken in a timely manner so that the desired 

condition is achieved in a reasonable timeframe. The cumulative effects area is bounded 

in time as the next 10 to 15 years and is bounded in space as the upper French Creek and 

Ruby Creek Watersheds downstream to West Dam on French Creek. 

Affected Environment 

Suitable and occupied fish habitat is limited to French Creek and Ruby Creek in the 

French Creek Allotment. Minimal fisheries surveys have been completed in the analysis 

area due to the limited amount of suitable fish habitat. Native fish species documented 

(SDGFP 2009) in the analysis area include creek chub, fathead minnow, and white sucker 

(table 16). French Creek from the headwaters to the town of Custer and Ruby Creek are 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

123 

assigned the designated use of coldwater marginal fish life propagation. French Creek is 

not attaining this use because of low dissolved oxygen levels due to drought-related 

causes and natural sources (SD DENR 2010). The state will be completing a full 

assessment of French Creek in summer 2010 which should provide updated information 

on this situation. See the soil and water sections of this document for more information 

on watershed conditions. 

Recreational fishing opportunities in the Black Hills are sustained by non-native 

gamefish species, primarily brook, brown or rainbow trout. None of these species have 

been reported or stocked in French Creek or Ruby Creek. 

Table 16. Fish and suitable habitat in the analysis area (SDGFP 2009) 

Allotment/Water Body Fish Species Present

French Creek Allotment 

French Creek Creek chub, fathead minnow, white sucker 

North Fork French Creek Creek chub, fathead minnow 

South Fork French Creek No fish 

Ruby Creek Creek chub 

Environmental Consequences 

There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to fisheries under any of the 

alternatives on the Bull Flats, Lithograph, Lower Beaver, Tepee, and Water Draw 

Allotments due to the lack of suitable occupied fish habitat. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

There would be no direct effects (fish injury or mortality) with the removal of livestock 

from the French Creek Allotment. This alternative would have the beneficial indirect 

effect of providing for the quickest and most permanent attainment of the desired 

condition, specific to riparian vegetation and aquatic conditions along French and Ruby 

creeks. This would improve spawning, rearing, and feeding habitat for native, non-game 

fish species. Stream connectivity would not be affected because no new instream barriers 

would be constructed nor would any existing instream structures be removed. Additional 

information on the effects to aquatic and riparian habitat conditions, which constitute the 

indirect effects to fisheries, is disclosed in the hydrology, botany, and wildlife analyses. 

Cumulative Effects 

The removal of livestock would have a positive incremental impact in reducing sediment 

input and improving bank stability on French Creek that would be additive to stream 

habitat improvement expected from the Forest-wide travel management decision that 

restricted motorized off-road travel and reduced the number of stream crossings on 

French Creek that are open to the public. Any realized improvements to aquatic and 

riparian habitat conditions along French Creek would probably not be of a magnitude to 

support a recreational coldwater fishery, nor offset some of the stream channel and 

floodplain disturbance from historic mining activity. The coldwater marginal fish use 

assigned to French Creek may continue to be impaired due to natural sources and 

drought-related impacts. Native, nongame fish species would benefit when stream flow 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

124 

conditions are adequate, which would be influenced primarily by rainfall amounts. 

Instream barriers on French Creek, such as West Dam downstream of the French Creek 

Allotment boundary, would continue to preclude the upstream movement of fish into this 

improved aquatic habitat. This alternative best meets Forest Plan (objective 219, standard 

1201 and guideline 3212) and Regional Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook 

direction related to fisheries. 

Alternative 2 – Current Management 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

The direct effects to fisheries from livestock grazing relate to the potential for livestock to 

trample fish eggs and larvae during the fish spawning, incubation, and rearing season. 

This impact is expected to be negligible given the relatively short egg incubation and 

emergence time of native fish species, the lack of non-native trout in French Creek and 

Ruby Creek, and the fact that livestock are not impacting all suitable stream habitats 

during the spawning, incubation or rearing season. 

Indirect effects to fisheries result from the aquatic and riparian habitat modification 

caused by livestock grazing (USDA Forest Service 2005b). Streambank alteration caused 

by livestock results in wider stream channels, increased sediment input, and reduced 

streambank cover. Increased sediment input reduces pool depth, degrades spawning 

habitat suitability, and reduces food availability for fish that are native to Black Hills 

streams. Pool depth is a critical element in the overwintering survival of fish on the Black 

Hills. Wider stream channels and reduced streambank cover may increase the water 

temperature and reduce protective cover for fish. Additional information on the effects to 

aquatic and riparian habitat conditions, which constitute the indirect effects to fisheries, is 

disclosed in the hydrology, botany, and wildlife analyses. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 2 would continue to have a negative incremental impact on aquatic and 

riparian habitat conditions along French Creek. The coldwater marginal fish use assigned 

to French Creek is likely to remain impaired due to natural sources and drought-related 

impacts. Stream conditions are not likely to improve to a degree that would sustain a 

recreational coldwater fishery, nor offset the stream and floodplain degradation due to 

historic mining activities on French Creek. Improved aquatic and riparian habitat 

conditions predicted to occur with implementation of the recent Forest-wide travel 

management decision may be partially negated by continued livestock grazing under this 

alternative. Stream connectivity would remain unchanged because no instream barriers 

are proposed for removal or to be constructed. If the existing condition persists, this 

alternative would not meet the intent of Forest Plan guideline 3212 or the Regional 

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook percent stable streambank design criteria on 

French Creek. 

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Direct effects are likely to be similar to those occurring under current management 

practices. The proposed creation of a four-pasture deferred-rotation-grazing system (the 

existing Pope Springs Unit would be split into a north and a south pasture) with a 50 head 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

125 

reduction in permitted numbers on the French Creek Allotment could reduce this direct 

effect. With the exception of the complete exclusion of livestock access to French and 

Ruby creeks during the fish spawning season, this potential effect is greater than under 

the no-grazing alternative, but probably still negligible. 

A number of actions are proposed in the French Creek Allotment to address aquatic and 

riparian habitat concerns (see the “Alternatives” descriptions in chapter 2). Upon the 

successful implementation of these actions, the negative indirect effects to fisheries are 

reduced compared to alternative 2, but are still greater than alternative 1 (no grazing). 

Additional information on the effects to aquatic and riparian habitat conditions, which 

constitute the indirect effects to fisheries, is disclosed in the hydrology, botany, and 

wildlife analyses. 

Appendix E displays effects to fisheries from implementing adaptive management 

options (table 4) that could be used during the implementation of alternative 3. 

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 3 is predicted to have a positive incremental impact on improving aquatic and 

riparian habitat conditions along French Creek, but to a lesser degree than alternative 1. 

This positive incremental impact is probably not enough to attain the coldwater marginal 

fish use that is impaired due to low dissolved oxygen levels caused by natural sources 

and drought-related impacts. This positive impact would be additive to the positive 

impact resulting from the Forest-wide travel management decision which reduced motor 

vehicle use adjacent to French Creek, but is not enough to offset the stream and 

floodplain degradation on French Creek due to historic mining activities. Stream 

conditions are not likely to be improved to a degree that would sustain a recreational 

coldwater fishery. Stream connectivity would remain unchanged because no instream 

barriers are proposed for removal or to be constructed. Implementation of the proposed 

action and any subsequent adaptive management actions would be consistent with the 

Forest Plan (objective 219, standard 1201 and guideline 3212) and the Regional 

Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook percent stable streambank design criteria. 

Summary 

There would be no direct adverse effects to fish under alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 

may directly affect fisheries if livestock trample fish eggs and larvae during the 

spawning, incubation, or rearing season. This impact is likely to be negligible. 

Alternative 1 has positive indirect effects because the desired aquatic and riparian habitat 

conditions along French Creek and Ruby Creek would be attained in the least amount of 

time and be maintained with the greatest certainty. Under alternative 2, localized stream 

sites where the desired condition is not currently being met are likely to persist. 

Alternative 3 and the implementation of adaptive management actions is anticipated to 

achieve the desired condition, but not with the expediency or certainty expected under 

alternative 1. 

Alternative 1 has the greatest positive incremental impact on achieving the desired 

aquatic and riparian habitat condition, followed by alternative 3. This impact would be 

additive to other positive impacts resulting from the Forest-wide travel management 

decision that reduces the routes and areas open to motorized vehicle use adjacent to 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

126 

French Creek. This additive incremental impact is not likely to improve stream habitat 

conditions to the degree that the existing coldwater marginal fish use would be attained 

let alone upgraded to a coldwater permanent fish use, nor would stream conditions 

improve to the degree that a recreational coldwater fishery would be sustainable. 

Alternative 2 lacks the positive incremental benefits expected in alternatives 1 and 3. 

None of the alternatives have a cumulative effect on stream connectivity because no 

existing instream barriers that block fish are currently proposed for removal and no new 

instream structures are proposed. Executive Orders 12962 and 13474 on recreational 

fisheries have minimal applicability because of the marginal stream habitat in the analysis 

area. 

Cultural Resources _______________________________ 

Methodology 

Cultural resources include archaeological, historical, ethnographic and tribal resources; 

these are considered irreplaceable and nonrenewable resources. Forest Service policy 

(FSM 2361.3) requires that projects with the potential to affect cultural resources be 

surveyed to comply with 36 CFR_800 (protection of historic properties); the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended; the Archeological Resources 

Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; 

the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990; and 

the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978. To comply with these 

laws, any cultural resources known to be 50 years or older are recorded according to State 

Historic Preservation Office standards, evaluated for eligibility to the National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP), and assessed for potential effects from the proposed action 

alternatives. 

A review of past survey results and any recorded sites within the project area was 

conducted prior to any fieldwork. Locations to survey within these grazing allotments 

were based on established cultural resource inventory protocols. The South Dakota State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) reviewed the survey strategy and concurred with 

the research methods on April 25, 2008 (SHPO Project #080318007F). Criteria outlined 

within this survey strategy require the consideration of cultural resources that fall within 

areas where the high susceptibility for livestock impact overlaps areas of high potential 

for cultural sites. 

Surveys were conducted in May and June 2008 on a total of 4,843 acres within the Bull 

Flats, French Creek, and Water Draw Allotments (King et al. 2008), and within the 

Lithograph, Lower Beaver, and Teepee Allotments in July and August 2009 (King et al. 

2009). Surveys are complete in the project area. 

Livestock grazing can have both direct (e.g., trampling) and indirect impacts (e.g., 

reduced herbaceous cover which creates more site visibility and increases the risk of 

vandalism) to cultural resource sites. Effects to cultural resources are determined by the 

effects on their eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Sites that have not been evaluated for eligibility are treated as potentially-eligible 

properties and given the same protection as NRHP listed/eligible properties. For the 

purposes of this analysis, all confirmed cultural resource sites that have not been formally 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

127 

evaluated are treated the same as NRHP-eligible sites. The following measurement 

indicators were used to evaluate the effects of livestock grazing within the project area: 

 Location of sites and proximity to livestock concentration areas, and 

 Determination of potential effects to the sites’ eligibility for listing on the NRHP. 

There are a total of 75 sites within the area of potential effect: 32 new sites were recorded 

based on these surveys, 19 of which were subsequently evaluated for listing on the 

NRHP. Forty-three previously known sites were also monitored for grazing impacts, of 

which 12 were also evaluated for listing on the NRHP. 

Affected Environment 

The Black Hills are part of the larger Northwestern Plains cultural area (Rom et al. 1996). 

Human occupation of this area has been divided into six broad cultural periods (Frison 

1991) starting in the Paleo-Indian (11,500 B.P. to 7,000 B.P) through the Late-Prehistoric 

1,500 B.P. to 500 B.P). Cultural sites have been located that represent all of the above 

prehistoric phases of occupation of the Black Hills (Rom et al. 1996). Identifiable tribal 

groups living within the Black Hills area during the Protohistoric period include the 

Kiowa, Crow, Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Sioux. 

Certain Native American tribes consider the Black Hills to be sacred land. Their belief 

system links specific locations in and around the Black Hills to star constellations (Rom 

et al. 1996). These spiritually significant locations include but are not limited to: Devil’s 

Tower, Old Baldy Mountain, Buffalo Gap, Reynolds Prairie, the Spearfish limestone 

“race track” that surrounds the Black Hills, and Harney Peak (Goodman 1992). 

The historic context of the Black Hills overlaps the Protohistoric period, but is defined by 

Euro-American exploration and settlements in the area. Sporadic use of the Black Hills 

by Euro-Americans began in the early 1800s and consisted mainly of fur trappers and 

traders. The western half of South Dakota, including the Black Hills, portions of 

southern North Dakota, and nearly the entire area of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming 

and Montana was recognized as unceded Indian Territory by the 1868 treaty between the 

United States and the Sioux and Arapaho. More intense Euro-American occupation of the 

Black Hills began shortly after the discovery of gold in 1874. It was this discovery that 

brought a full scale and swift influx of Euro-American prospectors and miners to the 

Black Hills (Rom et al. 1996). 

Historic settlement in the Black Hills by Euro-Americans is generally auxiliary to this 

history of the mining industry. Homestead patents are common from the late 1800s 

through the 1920s. Industries such as ranching and logging became common in the early 

1900s (Rom et al. 1996). As these industries changed and homesteads failed, sites once 

bustling with human activity became abandoned. Today, the landscape is dotted with the 

remains of these early homesteads, the ranching infrastructure, as well as logging camps, 

usually presenting themselves as foundations, depressions can dumps, and historic 

artifact scatters. 

A total of 75 historic properties have been identified within the area of potential effect; 3 

on the Bull Flats Allotment; 8 on French Creek; 25 on Lithograph; 18 on Lower Beaver; 

11 on Tepee; and 10 on Water Draw. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

128 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

If there is no Federal action, then there is no undertaking, as defined in 36_CFR_800.16 

(y), for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C 470f). Under this 

alternative livestock would no longer be grazed within the project area. Existing permits 

would be phased out. This by itself does not constitute an undertaking under section 106. 

However, at the point that existing improvements such as fences, gates, and pipelines are 

proposed for removal, this would constitute a new undertaking and further consultation 

would then be required with the SHPO and tribal governments to ensure site-specific 

effects are minimized or avoided. 

Alternative 2 – Current Management and Alternative 3 – Proposed Action 

Direct/ Indirect Effects 

Because livestock grazing would continue under both alternatives 2 and 3, both 

alternatives have the potential for the same type and extent of adverse impacts to cultural 

resources. These include such effects as trampling and direct damage to sites if cattle 

congregate on a site, increasing bare ground around sites, and rubbing against historic 

cabins and damaging wood features. Several project design features have been developed 

to minimize the potential for direct, adverse impacts to known cultural sites within the 

allotments for either alternative (see chapter 2). These design features include ensuring 

livestock concentration areas avoid culturally sensitive areas and any newly discovered 

sites are considered. Indirect effects are also possible and include increased exposure of 

sites due to removal of vegetation, which can lead to looting, vandalism, and increased 

unauthorized off-highway vehicle activity. These effects would be negligible to minor, 

due to limited public access in the area. Proposed actions and monitoring are also a 

component of alternatives 2 and 3 (see table 5 and B-1). For purposes of section 106 

consultation, implementation of either alternative 2 or 3 would result in no adverse effect

to cultural resources. The South Dakota SHPO concurred with this finding on February 2, 

2010; consultation with SHPO and with pertinent Tribal Historic Preservation Offices is 

now complete. The cultural resources report provides more detail on this determination. 

Implementation of adaptive management options (table 4) is an important component of 

alternative 3. Any of these options could be used during the implementation of alternative 

3. Any new structural improvements or changes (such as new fences or tanks) would 

require additional site-specific section 106 review and consultation. Other actions that 

would not result in new ground disturbance (such as changed permitted numbers or 

seasons of use) would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative effects. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects to cultural resources relate to the level of potential ground-disturbing 

activities within the project area. Actions listed in table 9 were reviewed for applicability 

to cultural resources. Forest management projects such as livestock grazing, and 

associated existing range projects, as well as timber harvest, recreation, road 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

129 

construction, pine encroachment treatments and prescribed burning, may have cumulative 

effects to heritage resources by increasing soil erosion from surface disturbances, 

bringing additional people in contact with heritage resources by increasing visitor use and 

traffic, and affecting the fabric of historic structures. These impacts are difficult to 

quantify, but can be avoided or minimized through the implementation of appropriate 

site-specific management options through consultation with the SHPO and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation. 

Natural weathering and deterioration, erosion, fires, and other types of ongoing processes 

may contribute to cumulative effects to heritage resources. The proposed action, which 

would result in continuation of sanctioned management activities, could reduce adverse 

cumulative effects. This is because inventory and evaluation would be required under 

this proposal. The inventory and evaluation could lead to more heritage resources being 

located and a reduction of adverse cumulative effects caused by natural processes after 

heritage resources are brought under appropriate management. Recording and archiving 

basic information about archaeological sites in the proposed project areas serve to lower 

potential cumulative effects to cultural resources. 

This project could contribute to cumulative effects of other projects in the form of 

disrupting site features, moving or breaking surface artifacts, trampling, and erosion. 

While these effects do not normally occur within a single grazing season they can result 

from continued, long-term grazing and become cumulative over time. These effects 

would be monitored as part of the proposed action based on current monitoring 

guidelines, and the site-specific monitoring stipulations recommended by the State and 

Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. With implementation of the proposed action, the 

contribution of effects from this project is expected to be very minor. These effects may 

be monitored at sites determined eligible for the NRHP. If the monitoring reveals 

adverse effects to historic properties, State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices will 

be consulted. 

By following a predictive model for determining the coincidence of cattle and human 

high probability areas, not all areas of possible effect were surveyed for cultural 

resources. Unidentified eligible and ineligible sites may exist in these un-surveyed areas. 

The un-surveyed portions of the allotment are less likely to be grazed, or are grazed much 

less intensively, thereby reducing the potential to affect cultural resources. If grazing 

patterns change, or if ground disturbance becomes necessary for maintenance of range 

improvements, additional cultural resource assessment is required to determine if 

additional survey is needed prior to implementation. 

Cumulative effects could also occur to heritage resources as a result of non-sanctioned 

activities, such as vandalism or illegal excavation. Efforts to control and monitor these 

activities under the proposed action would result in a low level of cumulative effects. 

Archaeological resources are non-renewable. Due to both natural and human processes, 

the loss of archaeological resources has happened in the past and would happen in the 

future. Over time fewer archaeological resources would be available to learn about past 

human life-ways, to study changes in human behavior through time, and to interpret the 

past to the public. However, cumulative effects to heritage resources as a result of 

sanctioned current management activities should be minimized because of the protection 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

130 

and management measures that would be implemented through compliance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Summary 

Implementation of alternative 1 is not considered an undertaking for purposes of section 

106 of the NHPA. If alternative 1 is selected for implementation, site-specific section 106 

evaluations would need to occur to determine the potential for effects to cultural 

resources as a result of removal of range improvements. 

Implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 would result in a no adverse effect determination 

under section 106 of the NHPA and the SHPO concurred with this finding on February 2, 

2010. Project design features, proposed actions, and monitoring would apply to both 

alternatives that would minimize the potential for adverse effects. 

Livestock Grazing and Economics __________________ 

Methodology 

Livestock grazing provides jobs and revenue to the local economy. Permitted AMs and 

how allotments are managed influences the economic viability of ranching operations. 

The economic analysis was assessed for the entire project area. The Quick-Silver 

economic program (USDA Forest Service 2008b) was used to compare the present net 

value (PNV) of the alternatives to both the Forest Service and the range permittees per 

allotment. Benefit:cost ratio and net annual equivalent were calculated for both the 

permittee and the Forest Service separately because certain grazing practices are more 

costly to one or the other. PNV is a way of comparing all monetarily valued costs and 

benefits and is calculated by subtracting the discounted sum of total costs from the 

discounted sum of total benefits. 

PNVs are calculated over a 10-year period because this is a typical time frame for an 

allotment management plan. 

For alternative 1, the analysis considered all costs associated with removing livestock 

grazing on the Forest. For purposes of analysis, costs to the Forest Service included the 

removal of all livestock fences, two-thirds of the water developments and half of the 

associated pipelines, and maintenance of the range improvements left intact for wildlife 

purposes. 

For alternatives 2 and 3, the analysis considered all costs and benefits associated with 

grazing on the Forest, and calculated these over a 10-year period. Costs and benefits to 

the Forest Service included materials and other associated costs of range improvements 

provided by the Forest Service and grazing fees collected. Permit administration and 

monitoring costs were not analyzed, but should be taken into account when comparing 

alternatives. Costs and benefits to permittees include construction of range 

improvements, maintenance of range improvements, grazing fees, and grazing forage 

value. Annual expenses of grazing livestock such as salting, incidental livestock 

mortality, and veterinary costs were not accounted for in the economic analysis due to the 

variability of the factors involved and because they are not a result or condition of 

grazing on NFS lands. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

131 

Under alternative 3, only the initial adaptive management changes were included in the 

economic analysis. In most cases there is a range of adaptive management options that 

could be chosen and there is no way of knowing which options might be chosen in the 

future. 

The value of the weight gained by livestock while grazing on NFS lands was not included 

for alternatives 2 or 3 because it is dependent on many factors that vary between 

allotments and permittees, including the breed of livestock, management strategies while 

on private lands, market conditions at the time of sale and other factors. 

This section is compiled from information contained in the Range Report (Bindel 2010a) 

and the Economics Report (Reedy 2010) prepared for this project. 

Changes in permitted numbers, range improvements, implementation of improvements 

can all affect the administration of livestock permits, operation costs, jobs and revenue, 

and the success in meeting project objectives. Differences in permitted numbers are 

limited to the French Creek and Water Draw Allotments, as shown in chapter 2 and 

summarized in tables 3 and 7. Existing number of range improvements for each 

allotment are summarized in chapter 2 and shown on allotment maps in appendix A. 

Proposed new range improvements under alternative 3 are discussed in detail for each 

allotment in chapter 3 and summarized in table 5. Permitted numbers and range 

improvements are considered in the economic analysis. 

In order to compare alternatives, the following measurable indicators have been 

developed: 

 Change in social and economic factors (costs and benefits) associated with 

grazing on the Forest (measured through PNV, using the factors described above). 

 Changes in permit administration for the French Creek Allotment and changes in 

conflicts with private land owners. 

Affected Environment 

Social and Economic Factors. The first step in the analysis of economic effects was to 

identify the counties and communities with economic dependencies associated with 

livestock grazing on the Black Hills National Forest, and particularly those in the project 

area. For the purpose of this analysis, only those communities located most closely to the 

Black Hills National Forest were included. The counties considered most vulnerable to 

decisions within the project area are Custer and Pennington counties, SD, and Weston 

County, WY. Five of the allotments are located entirely within Custer County, while one 

allotment is located in Custer, Pennington, and Weston counties. The communities of 

Custer, SD (population 1,860) and Newcastle, WY (population 3,065), were considered 

those most likely to be affected based on their proximity to the project area. 

Every county’s economy is fueled by one or more sectors that provide jobs and income 

throughout the area. Jobs and income are dependent upon the size and vitality of these 

economic sectors. The health of the economy is dependent not only on strong economic 

sectors, but upon a diversified range of sectors. If a county’s economy is heavily 

dependent on only one industrial segment, it may be vulnerable to declines in prosperity 

if business conditions for that industry turn downward. Economies that are diversified are 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

132 

more resilient and far less vulnerable to downturns resulting from adverse conditions in 

any one sector. 

In 2007, agriculture (farming and ranching) accounted for about 6.6 percent of jobs in 

Custer County, 1.1 percent in Pennington County, and approximately 5.5 percent of jobs 

in Weston County (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). Of agricultural products sold in 

2007, livestock made up 96 percent of sales in Custer County, 67 percent of sales in 

Pennington County, and 97 percent of sales in Weston County (USDA-NASS). 

Demographics. Based on population estimates for 2008, Custer County has a population 

of 7,811 with a population increase of 7.4 percent since 2000; Pennington County has a 

population of 98,533 with a growth rate of 11.2 percent; and Weston County has a 

population of 7,022, a 5.7 percent increase since 2000. Comparatively, the State of South 

Dakota as a whole has increased by 6.5 percent from 2000 to 2008 and the State of 

Wyoming has increased by 7.9 percent (U.S. Census Bureau). 

Ethnicity is predominantly Caucasian in Custer County (93.9 percent), Pennington 

County (86.7 percent) and Weston County (96.6 percent). In 2000 the median age in 

Custer, SD, was 41.7 years and the median age in Newcastle, WY, was 40.1 years (U.S. 

Census Bureau). 

Geography. Custer County encompasses 1,558 square miles of land area. According to 

data from the census year 2000, there are approximately five people per square mile in 

Custer County. Pennington County comprises 2,776 square miles with a population 

density of 32 people per square mile compared to an average population density of 

approximately 10 people per square mile for the State of South Dakota as a whole. 

Weston County comprises 2,398 square miles with a population density of approximately 

three people per square mile compared to an average population density of about five 

people per square mile for the State of Wyoming as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau). 

Employment and Income. Custer, Pennington, and Weston Counties have fairly diverse 

economies with service, mining, ranching, retail, construction, government, professional, 

and education-related jobs contributing to the economic base. Agriculture is a smaller 

portion of the economy than it once was; but adds to the diversity of the county and the 

surrounding communities. Income from ranching is highly variable. Ranching operations 

in the area often operate at a loss or close to the margin and the profitability can be 

significantly affected by a variation of market conditions. If access to Federal lands for 

grazing is altered significantly, this change could affect ranching profits and overall 

business viability. 

Social Environment. In addition to the economic factors, ranching contributes to the 

social fabric of both Custer and Newcastle, and it is an important part of the people’s 

heritage in Custer, Pennington, and Weston counties. Ranching has a long history in the 

local communities dating back to the late 1800s. Many of the local ranching families are 

direct descendants of the area’s earliest settlers while others have moved to the area more 

recently. The allotments within the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project area support 15 

permittees and their families. The use of the National Forests has been an integral part of 

the management of these ranches for many years and contributes to the viability of their 

agricultural operations. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

133 

Grazing Fees. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 declared that “vast 

segments of the public rangelands are producing less than their potential for livestock, 

wildlife, habitat, recreation, forage, and water and soil conservation benefits...” The act 

further declared that “...to prevent economic disruption and harm to the western livestock 

industry, it is in the public interest to charge a fee for livestock grazing permits and leases 

on the public lands which is based on a formula reflecting annual changes in the costs of 

production...” Guidance for implementation of grazing fees is found in 36 CFR 222, 

subpart C. These regulations state that: “... the calculated grazing fee for 1988 and 

subsequent grazing fee years represent the economic value of the use of the land to the 

user and is the product of multiplying the base fair market value of $1.23 by the result of 

the annual Forage Value Index, added to the sum of the Beef Cattle Price Index minus the 

Prices Paid Index and divided by 100: provided that the annual increase or decrease in 

such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than or minus 25 percent of the 

previous year’s fee, and provided further that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per head 

per month.” 

While the act established that grazing on public land was in the public interest, it did not 

require that the grazing programs administered by land management agencies, such as the 

Forest Service, achieve a profit from grazing. 

French Creek Allotment Permit Administration. The French Creek Allotment is 

located approximately 1 mile west of Custer, SD, and includes a total of 10,128 acres of 

land, all of which is NFS land. While not part of the allotment, there are many private 

land parcels interspersed throughout the area. A rest rotation system started on the French 

Creek Allotment in 1960 and continued through 2007. In 2007, it was changed to a 

deferred rotation grazing system with a use period of June 1–September 30. The amount 

and distribution of private land parcels throughout the French Creek Allotment makes 

management difficult in this area. The last AMP was approved in 1991. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Social and Economic Factors. As shown in table 17, alternative 1 would result in a loss 

in revenue to all affected permittees and a short-term (estimated over a 10-year period) 

financial loss of nearly $673,000 to the Forest Service due to costs associated with 

removal of all livestock fences, two-thirds of the water developments, and half of the 

associated pipelines, and maintenance of the range improvements left intact for wildlife 

purposes. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

134 

Table 17. Comparison of economic cost (PNV) by alternative for each allotment 

Allotment Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Bull Flats 

Permittee Cost NA ($11,480) ($11,480) 

USFS Cost ($113,560) $910 $910 

French Creek 

Permittee Cost NA $71,940 $1,780 

USFS Cost ($52,070) $2,000 ($72,250) 

Lithograph 

Permittee Cost NA $129,430 $127,640 

USFS Cost ($106,570) ($3,720) ($7,280) 

Lower Beaver 

Permittee Cost NA $173,140 $171,480 

USFS Cost ($171,040) $3,620 $520 

Tepee 

Permittee Cost NA $182,220 $173,320 

USFS Cost ($144,300) ($8,480) ($23,670) 

Water Draw 

Permittee Cost NA NA ($27,430) 

USFS Cost ($85,270) ($48,070) ($46,690) 

All Allotments–Total Permittee Cost NA $545,250 $435,320

All Allotments–Total USFS Cost ($672,810) ($53,740) ($150,370)

In the long term (greater than 10 years), total removal of livestock grazing would 

eventually eliminate all costs and benefits to the Forest Service for administration and 

monitoring of the livestock grazing program. Since the costs of grazing administration 

are not completely offset by the grazing fees collected, this alternative would benefit the 

Forest Service by reducing a negative cash flow. However, the Forest Service is not 

required to maintain a positive cash flow from the grazing program as discussed above. 

Alternative 1 would eliminate all benefits to permittees and would require the permittees 

(15 families) to either find other locations for grazing or lose this source of income. The 

loss of these ranching operations could cause landowners to sell their private land to 

developers; this would affect the social fabric of these communities. 

French Creek Allotment Permit Administration. Because all livestock would be 

removed from this allotment, the current permit administration and management 

challenges related to numerous scattered private land parcels would be eliminated. This 

alternative goes the furthest in addressing this project objective. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Social and Economic Factors. As shown in table 17, alternative 2 would result in 

revenue to the permittees for all allotments except Bull Flats and Water Draw. The forage 

value received from Bull Flats does not outweigh the cost of grazing fees and 

maintenance of range improvements and Water Draw would not be grazed under 

Alternative 2. When comparing alternatives 2 and 3, permittee revenue is quite similar 

for the Bull Flats, Lithograph, Lower Beaver, and Tepee Allotments. There are 

differences for French Creek and Water Draw, because alternative 3 includes multiple 

range improvements for both of these allotments, and the cost of these would be greater 

than the forage value on these allotments, over the short term (10 years). 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

135 

The values shown in Table 17 for total cost for all permittees combined are positive, 

which means that, in terms of PNV, the benefits the permittees receive (grazing forage 

value) outweigh the costs of implementing either alternative. 

Under alternative 2, the Forest Service would incur costs on the Lithograph, Tepee, and 

Water Draw Allotments by implementing range improvements that would address 

heritage resource concerns but would realize revenue for Bull Flats, French Creek, and 

Lower Beaver Allotment because no new actions would occur in these allotments that 

would detract from the grazing fees collected. However, under alternative 3, the Forest 

Service would incur higher costs, primarily due to increases on the French Creek, 

Lithograph, and Tepee Allotments. This is due to the greater number of proposed actions 

occurring in these three allotments. 

Because of the increase in the number of range improvements, adaptive management 

options, and additional monitoring, implementation of alternative 3 would result in a 

higher cost to the Forest Service and generation of lower revenue to permittees (for all 

allotments combined) than alternative 2. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would both provide some economic value to the local communities. 

French Creek Allotment Permit Administration. Because livestock grazing would 

continue on the French Creek Allotment under alternatives 2 and 3, management 

challenges related to numerous scattered private land parcels would continue. However, 

alternative 3 would improve grazing efficiency through creation of a one permit 

operation. There would be greater flexibility in implementing adaptive management 

decisions in the allotment with one permittee rather than three. 

An increase in efficiency relating to management of the allotment by one permit would 

also be reflected in relationships with adjacent private property owners. The intermingled 

ownership creates additional complexities in management of livestock. Private property 

owners often do not understand rules and regulation associated with livestock on Federal 

lands adjacent to private land. One permittee with one herd of livestock would open 

communications between permittee, private landowner, and the Forest Service. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are many outside influences that affect the economic viability of ranching 

operations including livestock market conditions, weather patterns, governmental 

regulation, occurrence of diseases, and international trade policies. 

Within the local counties, the overall volume of livestock-related jobs in the local 

economy is quite small; hence, the economy-wide impacts between the alternatives are 

quite small. However, the direct and indirect effects may be considerable for individual 

persons, families, or businesses within the analysis area. Within the rural communities of 

the surrounding area, particularly in very small communities, the loss of a single job may 

be very important to that community, even though it may be barely noticeable within the 

larger economy. 

The American Farmland Trust (2006) found that from 1992 to 1997, more than 11 

million acres of rural land in the United States were converted to developed use—more 

than half of that conversion was from agricultural land. In that same period, an average of 

more than 1 million agricultural acres was developed each year. The rate is increasing: up 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

136 

51 percent from the rate reported in the previous decade. If these local ranching 

operations become economically unviable, it is likely that the ranches would be sold, 

broken up, and developed for residential properties or converted to other uses. Gradually 

the ranching component of the social setting could be decreased or lost. 

Summary 

The comparison between alternatives gives a valid portrayal of the relative costs to the 

permittees. This method also gives a valid comparison of the total cost to the Forest 

Service for grazing these allotments under both alternatives. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide some economic value to the local communities. The 

effects of the alternatives on the social setting are directly tied to the economic effects. 

Alternative 1 could affect the viability of those operations and move them toward 

economic demise. The loss of these ranching operations could force landowners to sell to 

developers and affect the social fabric of the communities. Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

have greater benefits to local ranchers and are more likely to maintain cattle ranching in 

the local communities. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would help with the attainment of Forest Plan goal 8 and Forest Plan 

objectives 803 and 804. Alternative 1 would not help attain these goals and objectives. 

Climate Change __________________________________ 

Methodology 

The methods used to assess how success of the alternatives could be affected by climate 

change and the predicted impacts of the alternatives on climate change came primarily 

from guidance in the Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis 

(USDA Forest Service 2009b), information provided by the Climate Change Resource 

Center found at (http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/landscape-analysis.shtml) and a white 

paper prepared by the Sawtooth National Forest specific to livestock grazing (Brown et 

al. 2008). 

Livestock grazing can result in release of greenhouse gases through enteric fermentation 

and manure. Livestock grazing can also contribute to alteration of rangelands and habitat 

quality through grazing practices and contribute to large pulses of greenhouse gas 

emissions through a decrease in the potential for high-intensity wildfire through 

consumption of fine fuels. The effect of climate change on the proposed project includes 

changes in rainfall and temperature patterns over time that can influence the forage 

capacity in the project area over the long term. 

Affected Environment 

Elevation ranges from 2,440 to 9,320 feet and in some areas the terrain is rugged and 

steep. The project area has a semi-arid climate with low humidity throughout the year. 

Temperatures range from 100o

 F during the summer months to well below 0o F in winter. 

Average annual precipitation is approximately 19 inches (Driscoll et al. 2002). The 

largest precipitation amounts typically occur during May and June, and the smallest 

amounts typically occur during November through February (Driscoll et al. 2002). 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

137 

Localized intense thunder cells associated with the monsoons can produce much greater 

rain than surrounding areas within one storm event (Fact Sheet Team 2001). 

The temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere is regulated by a balance between amount of 

radiation received from the sun that is reflected by the earth’s surface and clouds, and the 

amount of radiation absorbed by the earth and atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, which 

include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other gases, keep the Earth’s surface 

warmer than it would be otherwise because they absorb infrared radiation from the Earth 

and, in turn, radiate this energy back down to the surface. This insulating effect, known 

as the greenhouse effect, moderates atmospheric temperatures and keeps the Earth warm 

enough to support life (GAO 2006). While these gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, 

there has been a rapid increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s 

atmosphere from human causes since the start of industrialization, which has caused 

concerns over potential changes in the global climate. For over the past 200 years, the 

burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation has caused the 

concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases to increase significantly in our 

atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat like the glass 

panels of a greenhouse (EPA 2009). 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a leading source for 

international climate expertise, noted in April 2007 that “observational evidence from all 

continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by 

regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases.” The IPCC further noted 

that climate change has, in some areas, led to rising sea levels, declining snow cover, 

melting glacial and Arctic ice, coral bleaching, and changes in the timing and amount of 

precipitation, among other things (IPCC 2007). 

The primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities in the United States in 2006 was 

carbon dioxide (CO2), representing approximately 85 percent of total greenhouse gas 

emissions. The largest source of CO2, and of overall greenhouse gas emissions, was fossil 

fuel combustion. Methane (CH4) emissions, which have declined from 1990 levels, 

resulted primarily from enteric fermentation associated with domestic livestock, 

decomposition of wastes in landfills, and natural gas systems (Brown et al. 2008). 

Methane is more than 20 times as effective as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the 

atmosphere. Over the last 250 years, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere 

increased by 148 percent (IPCC 2007 [in Brown et al. 2008]). Anthropogenic sources of 

methane include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal 

mining, wastewater treatment, stationary and mobile combustion, and certain industrial 

processes. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management 

represented about 23 percent and 7 percent of total methane emissions from 

anthropogenic activities, respectively, in 2006. An adult cow emits between 55 to 110 

kilograms of methane annually. There are approximately 100 million cattle in the United 

States, which emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year 

(http://www.epa.gov/oeaagct/anprgbmp.html). Calculations to determine the methane 

output from livestock grazing permitted on the Black Hills National Forest as a whole has 

not been conducted but a rough calculation was prepared for projected methane 

production in the project area (Bindel 2010b). The range of methane emitted by permitted 

livestock grazing contributes about 0.0006 percent to about 0.0012 percent to the national 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

138 

methane output. This is similar to an estimate prepared on the Sawtooth National Forest 

where the range of methane calculated for permitted livestock grazing in 2007 for the 

whole Forest contributed about 0.01 percent to 0.02 percent to the national methane 

output (Brown et al. 2008). 

Forests play a major role in the carbon cycle. The carbon stored in live biomass, dead 

plant material, and soil represents the balance between CO2 absorbed from the 

atmosphere and its release through respiration, decomposition, and burning. Over longer 

time periods, indeed as long as forests exist, they would continue to absorb carbon 

(USDA Forest Service 2009b). 

Ongoing climate change research is summarized in reports by the United Nations 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (www.ipcc.ch), U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program’s Science Synthesis and Assessment Products, and the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program. These reports concluded that climate is already 

changing; that the change would accelerate, and that human greenhouse gas emissions, 

primarily carbon dioxide emissions, are the main source of accelerated climate change 

(USDA Forest Service 2009b). Regional Great Plains predictions found on the 2009 

United States Global Climate Change website states that (1) increases in temperature, 

evaporation, and drought frequency are possible out to year 2099 and that there may be a 

decline in water resources if it continues unabated; and (2) agriculture, ranching, and 

natural lands, already under pressure due to an increasingly limited water supply, would 

also be stressed by rising temperatures. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Literature on climate change indicates that restoration of degraded habitats and 

maintaining resilient habitats is an effective tool for land managers to deal with climate 

change, as reinforced by Brennan 2008 and CCSP 2009. From a global perspective, 

stresses caused by climate change could be exacerbated by existing stresses on 

ecosystems from such sources as pollution, human settlement, land-use change, and 

invasion by nonnative species. Together, climate change and ecosystem stresses may 

cause substantial damage to, or the complete loss of, some ecosystems and the extinction 

of species. Furthermore, scientists project that changes in temperature and precipitation 

may result in more extreme weather events, such as more frequent and severe droughts, 

storms, and floods (GAO Report 2007). Therefore, reducing stressors and enhancing 

ecosystem resiliency are tools managers could use at a regional or local scale to address 

changing environmental conditions. 

Removal of livestock grazing from the project area would not result in direct greenhouse 

gas emissions or direct changes in climate or overall vegetation patterns. Carbon would 

remain sequestered in the forested portions of the project area. Methane would not be 

produced by livestock on those portions of the project area on Forest Service land. It is 

also likely that all or most of the livestock would be moved off-Forest and out of the 

district, reducing methane production even more. This reduction in methane production 

(on six allotments out of approximately 135 allotments on the Forest), would not be 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

139 

measurable. As discussed above, estimated calculations of methane emitted by permitted 

livestock grazing in the project area contributes much less than 1 percent of the methane 

production to the national annual output; a removal of livestock from these six allotments 

in the project area would then not appreciably change (positively or negatively) this 

predicted output. 

As discussed in other resource sections of this chapter, removal of livestock grazing 

could result in short-term, and in some cases, long-term, benefits to natural resources 

including rangeland condition and riparian area health in the project area. However, 

totally removing livestock would actually reduce management flexibility and would 

decrease variability and the mosaic of vegetation conditions across the landscape. While 

Alternative 1 would result in some benefits to natural resources in the short-term, other 

sections of this chapter discuss that removing livestock is not necessarily the best way to 

maintain diverse, productive, healthy, vigorous plant communities in the long-term; 

Improved riparian conditions, for example, is part of the purpose and need for action. 

Since the national forests were created in part for “securing favorable conditions of water 

flows,” managing vegetation to restore and enhance ecological processes and functions 

would also provide more favorable conditions for adapting to a changing climate. 

Continual severe livestock grazing could be considered to be a stressor to the ecological 

site where those impacts are occurring; removal of this stressor may in the short-term 

provide habitat improvement. However, because rangeland conditions in the project area 

are generally good, trends in condition are stable or upward, and continued severe 

livestock grazing is not occurring, there is no indication that a total removal of livestock 

would be necessary to achieve habitat restoration, increased resiliency, or enhanced 

management flexibility. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Direct/Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Both alternative 2 and 3 would authorize livestock grazing in the project area which 

would result in the production of the greenhouse gas, methane, by permitted livestock. 

However, as discussed above, this production is extremely small when compared to that 

of the nation, or in global context. This project-level contribution to greenhouse gas 

emissions would not be significant enough to measure. 

To increase ecosystem resilience, a number of approaches have been put forth for use in 

adaptive management (Julius et al. 2008 cited in CCSP 2009). These include, among 

other things, avoiding landscape fragmentation and restoring connectivity and reducing 

stressors (Scott and Lemieux 2005 and Groffman et al. 2006 cited in CCSP 2009). Use of 

adaptive management is an extremely useful tool to deal with changing climatic 

conditions and environmental variability (CCSP 2009). Increasing resiliency and 

reducing stressors are challenges that are difficult to plan for. Providing management 

flexibility through the use of adaptive management techniques and tools, as described for 

Alternative 3, would contribute. 

Alternative 3 is in compliance with Forest Plan direction and thus would provide resource 

conditions that are resilient to changing climatic conditions. Alternative 3 includes sitespecific proposed actions to address concern areas, enhanced monitoring and the 

implementation of adaptive management. For these reasons, Alternative 3 would result in 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

140 

resource conditions more resilient to long-term changes and would provide more 

management flexibility to respond to these changes in both the short- and long-term, 

when compared to Alternative 2. 

Assembling a toolbox of short-term and long-term strategies for building resistance and 

resilience in ecosystems may be key to addressing climate change. Alternative 3, by 

incorporating adaptive management, does this by providing the management flexibility to 

implement needed changes quickly on the ground. 

Summary 

At this time there are no regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The current state 

of science does not allow for site-specific analysis of greenhouse gas emissions at local or 

regional levels. Likewise, global climate change models are not yet able to determine 

specific impacts of greenhouse gases on local climate patterns. Methane production 

would differ between the alternatives and, for alternatives 2 and 3, would contribute to 

greenhouse gas emissions, but this would not be measurable at larger scales. 

By complying with Forest Plan direction, each alternative would maintain resilient 

habitats which may function better under changing climatic conditions, but Alternative 3 

provides the greatest opportunity for achieving this due to maintenance of diverse, 

productive, healthy, vigorous plant communities in the long-term. Alternative 3 also 

provides for enhanced management flexibility through the application of adaptive 

management. 

 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

141 

Glossary 

Adaptive Management ~ A type of natural resource management in which decisions are 

made as part of an ongoing process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, 

evaluating, and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches based on 

scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to modify management 

policy. 

Adaptive Management (as defined in this EA) ~ Adaptive management is defined as a 

process where land managers implement management practices that are designed to meet 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and would likely achieve the desired conditions in a 

timely manner. If monitoring shows that desired conditions, as described by Forest Plan 

direction, are not being met, then an alternate set of management actions, the effects of 

which are analyzed in this EA, would be implemented to achieve the desired results. 

Adjustment ~ Change in animal numbers, seasons of use, kinds or classes of animals, or 

management practices as warranted by specific conditions. 

Administrative Use ~ Use authorized by Forest Service officials to complete 

management functions and activities. 

Administrative (Jurisdictional) Wetland ~ These sites are considered to be wetlands 

for administrative purposes. However, having been delineated based on remote sensing 

technology, these sites may not meet all criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and 

wetland hydrology) to be considered jurisdictional wetlands. 

Affected Environment ~ The biological and physical environment that may be changed 

by proposed actions and the relationship of people to that environment. 

Allocation ~ The assignment of a land area to a particular use or uses to achieve 

management goals and objectives. 

Allotment ~ A designated area of land available for livestock grazing upon which a 

specified number and kind of livestock may be grazed under a range allotment 

management plan. It is the basic land unit used to facilitate management of the range 

resource on National Forest System lands, including national grasslands. 

Allotment Management Plan (AMP) ~ The document containing the action program 

needed to manage the range resource for livestock utilization, and possibly wildlife 

utilization, while considering the soil, watershed, wildlife, recreation, timber, and other 

resources in a range allotment. 

Allowable Use ~ (1) The degree of utilization considered desirable and attainable on 

various parts of a ranch or allotment considering the present nature and condition of the 

resource, management objectives, and levels of management; (2) the amount of forage 

planned to be used to accelerate range improvement. 

Alternative ~ A combination of management prescriptions applied in specific amounts 

and locations to achieve a desired management emphasis as expressed in goals and 

objectives. One of several policies, plans, or projects proposed for decision-making. An 

alternative need not substitute for another in all respects. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

142 

Animal Unit Month (AUM) ~ The amount of feed or forage required by an animal unit 

for 1 month. 

Animal Month (AM) ~ A month's tenure upon the rangeland by one animal; must 

specify kind and class of animal. Note: This term is not synonymous with animal unit 

month (AUM). 

Animal Unit ~ Considered to be a mature 1,000-pound cow, either dry or with a calf less 

than 6 months old, based on an average daily forage consumption of 26 pounds dry 

matter per day. 

Annual (plant) ~ A plant that completes its life cycle and dies in 1 year or less. 

Aquatic Ecosystem ~ An ecosystem (biological and physical components and their 

interactions) in which water is the principal medium. Examples include wetlands, 

streams, reservoirs, and areas with plants or animals suited to either permanently or 

seasonally inundated soils. 

Archeological Resource ~ Any physical remains of past human life or activities. 

Available Forage ~ That portion of the forage production that is accessible for use by a 

specified kind or class of grazing animal. 

Available Lands ~ Those portions of the national forest or national grassland not 

administratively excluded from timber harvest or livestock grazing. 

Base Property ~ Those lands in a ranching enterprise that are owned and required to 

hold a term grazing permit. 

Benchmarks ~ Benchmarks are reference points that are sensitive to management 

changes. These are the small areas where long-term trend studies are installed and 

maintained so that the manager can assess the resource impacts from management. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) ~ Land management methods, measures, or 

practices intended to minimize or reduce water pollution as well as practices that result in 

healthy ecosystems. Usually, BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather than a 

single practice. BMPs are selected based on site-specific conditions that reflect natural 

background conditions and political, social, economic, and technical feasibility. 

Biennial (plant) ~ A plant that lives for 2 years, usually flowering and fruiting only in 

the second year and then dying. 

Big Game ~ Certain wildlife that may be hunted for sport under State laws and 

regulations, including elk, mule and white-tail deer, turkey, and bighorn sheep. 

Biological Diversity ~ The full variety of life in an area, including the ecosystems, plant 

and animal communities, species and genes, and the processes through which individual 

organisms interact with one another and their environments. Emphasis is on the diversity 

of native or endemic species. 

Botanical Area ~ A unit of land that contains plant specimens, plant groups, or plant 

communities that are significant because of their form, color, occurrence, habitat, 

location, life history, arrangement, ecology, rarity, or other features. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

143 

Browse ~ Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and shrubs upon which animals feed: 

in particular, those shrubs that are utilized by some livestock and big game animals for 

food. 

Brush Barriers ~ Piles of logging slash, brush, stumps or other natural woody material 

that has been placed on the ground around sensitive sites (e.g., archeological sites) to 

exclude livestock. 

Candidate Species ~ Species for which the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service has on file 

sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a 

proposed rule to list the species for protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

Capable Rangeland ~ The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply 

goods and services, and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management 

practices and at given levels of management intensity. Capability depends on current 

conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as 

well as the application of management practices such as silviculture or protection from 

fire, insects, and disease. 

Carrying Capacity ~ The maximum possible stocking rate that is consistent with 

maintaining or improving vegetation or related resources. It may vary from year to year 

in the same area due to fluctuating forage production. Also called grazing capacity. 

Carrying Capacity (wildlife and livestock grazing) ~ The maximum number of 

animals that can be supported in a given environment without deteriorating that 

environment. 

CFR ~ Code of Federal Regulations. 

Class of Animal ~ Description of age and/or sex-group for a particular kind of animal. 

Example: cow, calf, yearling, ewe, doe, fawn, etc. 

Cold-water Fishery ~ Steam and lake waters that support predominately cold-water 

species of game or food fishes, which have maximum, sustained water-temperature 

tolerances of about 70°F in the summer. 

Connected Disturbed Areas ~ CDAs are areas that contribute sediment to streams or 

wetlands causing degradation of physical function, degraded water quality and increased 

peak flows that may alter physical channel processes. 

Conservation ~ The aggregate of practices and customs to perpetuate sustained yield of 

renewable resources and prevent waste of nonrenewable resources. 

Conservation Practices ~ Required land use practices on the national grasslands that are 

imposed upon the persons or organizations holding grazing permits (including grazing 

agreements) in order to protect, improve, develop, and administer the land and thus assist 

in furthering the program of land conservation and good land utilization. 

Consumptive Uses ~ Uses of a resource that reduce the supply. Examples include 

irrigation, domestic and industrial water use, grazing, and timber harvest. 

Continuous Grazing ~ The grazing of a specific unit by livestock throughout a year. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

144 

Cool-Season Plant ~ A plant that generally makes the major portion of its growth during 

the late fall, winter, and early spring. Cool-season species generally exhibit the C3 

photosynthetic pathway. 

Cost ~ The negative or adverse effects or expenditures resulting from an action. Costs 

may be monetary, social, physical, or environmental in nature. 

Cost Efficiency ~ The usefulness of specified inputs (costs) to produce specified outputs 

(benefits). In measuring cost efficiency, some outputs, including environmental, 

economic, or social impacts, are not assigned monetary values but are achieved at 

specific levels in the least-cost manner. Cost efficiency is usually measured using present 

net value, although use of benefit-cost ratios and rates of return may be appropriate. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) ~ An advisory council to the President 

established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

Cover Type ~ The vegetative species that dominates a site. Cover types are named for 

one plant species or non-vegetative condition presently (not potentially) dominant, using 

canopy or foliage cover as the measure of dominance. In several cases, sites with more 

than one dominant species have been lumped together into one cover type. Co-dominance 

is not necessarily implied. 

Cover/Forage Ratio ~ The ratio of tree cover (usually conifer types) to foraging areas, 

such as natural openings. 

Cross Fence ~ A fence that divides an allotment or pasture into smaller units. 

Cultural Resources ~ The physical remains and conceptual content or context of an 

area. Physical remains may include artifacts, structures, landscape modifications, rock 

art, trails, or roads. Conceptual content/context includes the setting for legendary, 

historic, or prehistoric events, such as a sacred area for American Indians. 

Cumulative Impact ~ The impact on the environment that results from the incremental 

effect of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of the source (Federal or non-Federal agencies, individuals). 

Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 

taking place over time. 

Decision Documents ~ Documents that provide the criteria and information used in the 

formulation and evaluation of alternatives and the preferred alternative. 

Decreaser (Plant) ~ Plant species of the original or climax vegetation that will decrease 

in relative amount with continued disturbance (heavy defoliation, fire, drought) to the 

norm. Some agencies use this only in relation to response to overgrazing. 

Deferment ~ Delay of livestock grazing on an area for an adequate time to allow plant 

reproduction, establishment of new plants, or restoration of vigor of existing plants. 

Deferred Rotation ~ To discontinue grazing on various parts of a range in succeeding 

years, allowing each part of the range to rest successively during the growing season to 

permit seed production, establishment of seedlings, or restoration of plant vigor. Each 

rested part of the range is grazed during the year. At least two, but usually three or more, 

separate grazing units are required. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

145 

Desired Condition ~ A portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to 

result if goals and objectives are fully achieved. 

Desired Plant Community ~ A plant community that produces the kind, proportion, and 

amount of vegetation necessary for meeting or exceeding the land use plan/activity plan 

objectives established for an ecological site. The desired plant community must be 

consistent with the site's capability to produce the desired vegetation through 

management, land treatment, or a combination of the two. 

Desired Plant Species ~ Species that contribute positively to the management objectives. 

Deteriorated Range ~ Range where vegetation and soils have significantly departed 

from the natural potential. Corrective management measures, such as seeding, would 

change the designation from deteriorated range to some other term. 

Developed Recreation ~ This type of recreation is dependent on facilities provided to 

enhance recreational opportunities in concentrated use areas. Examples include 

campgrounds and picnic areas. Facilities in these areas might include roads, parking lots, 

picnic tables, toilets, drinking water and buildings. 

Developed Recreation Sites ~ Relatively small, distinctly defined areas where facilities 

are provided for concentrated public use, such as campgrounds, picnic areas, and 

swimming beaches. 

Direct Effects ~ Environmental effects caused by an action and that occur at the same 

time and place. 

Dispersal ~ Leaving an area of birth, origin, or activity for another area. 

Dispersed Recreation ~ This type of recreational use requires few, if any, improvements 

and may occur over a wide area. This type of recreation involves activities related to 

roads, trails and undeveloped waterways, and beaches. The activities do not necessarily 

take place on or adjacent to a road, trail, or waterway, only in conjunction with them. 

Activities are often day-use oriented and include hunting, fishing, boating, off-road 

vehicle use, hiking, and others. 

Domestic ~ Refers to those animals and plants that are under the control of humans 

throughout their life cycle. Animals whose breeding is controlled by humans. 

Drift Fence ~ An open-ended fence used to retard or alter the natural movement of 

livestock. Generally used in connection with natural barriers. 

Drought ~ Any year or sequence of years when annual precipitation amounts are less 

than 75 percent below average. 

Dry Meadow ~ A meadow dominated by grasses and characterized by soils that become 

moderately dry by mid-summer. 

Economic Efficiency ~ The usefulness of inputs (costs) to produce outputs (benefits) and 

effects when all costs and benefits that can be identified and valued are included in the 

computations. Economic efficiency is usually measured using present net value, though 

use of benefit-cost ratios and rates-of-return may sometimes be appropriate. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

146 

Ecosystem ~ (1) A community of living plants and animals interacting with each other 

and with their physical environment. A geographic area where it is meaningful to address 

the interrelationships with human social systems, sources of energy, and the ecological 

processes that shape change over time. (2) A community of organisms and its 

environment functioning as an ecological unit in nature. 

Ecosystem Health ~ A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are 

sustained over time and where the system's capacity for self-repair is maintained, such 

that goals for uses, values, and services of the ecosystem are met. 

Ecosystem Management ~ Scientifically based land and resource management that 

integrates ecological capabilities with social values and economic relationships to 

produce, restore, or sustain ecosystem integrity and desired conditions, uses, products, 

values, and services over the long term. 

Effects ~ Physical, biological, social, and economic results (expected or experienced) 

resulting from achievement of outputs. Effects can be direct, indirect, and cumulative. 

Effects (Cultural Resources) ~ Impacts to the characteristics that qualify a heritage 

resource for the National Register of Historic Places. These can include alterations in 

location, setting, use design, materials, feeling, and association. Adverse effects include: 

 Physical destruction or damage. 

 Isolation from or alteration of setting. 

 Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements. 

 Physical deterioration from neglect or from any action. 

 Transfer, lease, or sale. 

Eligible (Cultural Resources) ~ Indicates that a specific heritage resource qualifies for 

or is already listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 

Endemic ~ Plants or animals that occur naturally in an area and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Environment ~ All the conditions, circumstances, and influences surrounding and 

affecting the development of an organism or group of organisms. 

Environmental Analysis ~ An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable shortand long-term environmental effects, which include physical, biological, economic, 

social, and environmental design factors and their interactions. 

Ephemeral – Generally, a grass-lined valley bottom with no defined channel that flows 

only in response to storms. 

Erosion ~ The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or 

other geological activities. 

Executive Order ~ An order or regulation issued by the President or some administrative 

authority under presidential direction. 

Exotic ~ Not native to the place where it is found. Often in reference to a specific race or 

variety of an organism that has been transplanted to a new region. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

147 

Exotic Species ~ An organism that exists in a free state in an area in which it is not 

native. Also refers to animals from outside the country in which they are held captive or 

in free-ranging populations. 

Extinction ~ Disappearance of a taxon of organisms from existence in all regions. 

Extirpated ~ The elimination of a species from a particular area. 

Fair Market Value ~ The amount or value for which, in all probability, a property 

would be sold by a knowledgeable owner willing but not obligated to sell to a 

knowledgeable purchaser who desires but is not obligated to buy. 

Fen ~ Peat-forming wetlands that receive nutrients from sources other than precipitation: 

usually from upslope sources through drainage from surrounding mineral soils and from 

groundwater movement.

Floodplain ~ The area adjacent to a stream/river channel effective in carrying flow, 

within which carrying capacity must be preserved and where the flood hazard is generally 

highest; that is, where flood depths and velocities are the greatest (FSH 2520). 

Forage ~ Vegetation used for food by wildlife and livestock, particularly ungulate 

wildlife and domestic livestock. 

Forage Production ~ The weight of forage that is produced within a designated period 

of time on a given area. The weight may be expressed as green, air dry, or oven dry. The 

term may also be modified as to time of production such as annual, current year, or 

seasonal forage production. 

Forage Reserve ~ Standing forage specifically maintained for future or emergency use. 

Forbs ~ Any herbaceous plant other than those in the grass, sedge, and rush families. For 

example, any non grass-like plant that has little or no woody material. 

Forest Plan (Forest Land and Resource Management Plan) ~ A document that guides 

natural resource management and establishes standards and guidelines for a national 

forest or national grassland. Required by the National Forest Management Act. 

Forested Range ~ Forestland that produces, at least periodically, sufficient understory 

vegetation suitable for forage and that can be grazed without significantly impairing 

wood production and other forest values. 

FSH ~ Forest Service Handbook. 

FSM ~ Forest Service Manual. 

Fuels ~ The organic materials that will support the start and spread of a fire: duff, litter, 

grass, weeds, forbs, brush, trees, and dead woody materials. 

Geographic Information System (GIS) ~ A spatial type of information management 

system that provides for the entry, storage, manipulation, retrieval, and display of 

spatially oriented data. 

Graminoid ~ Grass or grass-like plant, such as Poa, Carex, or Juncus species. 

Grass ~ A member of the grass family, Poaceae. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

148 

Grassland ~ Any land on which the dominant plants are grasses or on which grasses 

originally dominated. 

Grazing ~ The act of animals consuming plants on range or pasture. 

Grazing Capacity ~ The maximum number of livestock under management that a given 

range area is capable of supporting within guidelines found in the allotment management 

plan. 

Grazing Distribution ~ Dispersion of livestock or wild herbivores grazing within a 

given area. 

Grazing Fee ~ A charge, usually on a monthly basis, for grazing use by a given kind of 

animal. 

Grazing Land ~ An area of rangeland, public or private, that is used by animals for 

grazing. 

Grazing Permit ~ Official, written permission to graze a specified number, kind, and 

class of livestock for a specific period on a defined range allotment. 

Grazing Season ~ (1) A period of grazing to obtain optimum use of the forage resource; 

(2) on public lands, an established period for which grazing permits are issued. 

Grazing System ~ A specialization of grazing management that defines systematically 

recurring periods of grazing and deferment for two or more pastures or management 

units. Some examples are: deferred grazing, rotation grazing, deferred-rotation grazing, 

and short-duration grazing. 

Grazing Trespass ~ The grazing of livestock on a range area without proper authority 

and resulting from a willful or negligent act. 

Grazing Unit ~ An area of rangeland, public or private, that is grazed as an allotment or 

pasture. 

Grazing, Short-duration ~ A grazing system in which animals are concentrated on less 

than one-half of the total land area and the lengths of deferment exceed the lengths of 

grazing. 

Ground Cover ~ The percentage of material, other than bare ground, covering the land 

surface. It may include live and standing dead vegetation, litter, cobble, gravel, stones, 

and bedrock. Ground cover plus bare ground would total 100 percent. 

Groundwater ~ Water within the Earth that supplies wells and springs. Specifically, 

water in the zone of saturation where all openings in soils and rocks are filled. The upper 

surface level forms the water table. 

Growing Season ~ In temperate climates, that portion of the year when temperature and 

moisture permit plant growth. 

Guideline ~ Advisable actions that should be followed to achieve grassland or Forest 

goals and objectives. Deviations from guidelines must be analyzed during project-level 

analysis and be documented in a project decision document but do not require 

management plan amendments. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

149 

Habitat ~ The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by a 

wildlife species or a population of such species. 

Habitat Suitability ~ A measure of current habitat quality relative to the local biological 

potential of an area to provide habitat for a species. Habitat suitability is usually 

expressed as low, moderate or high or is quantitatively presented as an index value scaled 

from 0 (unsuitable) to 1.0 (optimum habitat). 

Herb ~ A plant with one or more stems that dies back to the ground each year. 

Herbicide ~ A chemical substance used for killing plants. 

Herbivore ~ An animal that subsists principally or entirely on plants or plant material. 

Herd ~ An assemblage of animals usually of the same species. 

Historic Property ~ Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object 

included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. This term includes artifacts, 

records, and remains related to and located within such properties. 

Home Range ~ The geographic area within which an animal restricts its activities. 

Human Environment ~ Includes the natural and physical environment and the 

relationship of people within that environment. 

Hydrologic Cycle ~ The ecological cycle that moves water from the air, by precipitation, 

to the earth and back to the atmosphere. A variety of processes are involved, including 

evaporation, runoff, infiltration, percolation, storage, and transpiration. 

ID Team (interdisciplinary team) ~ A group of people with different specialized 

training assembled to solve a problem or perform a task. The team is assembled out of 

recognition that no one discipline is sufficiently broad to adequately solve the problem. 

Through interaction, participants bring different points of view and a broader range of 

expertise to bear on the problem. 

Inaccessible Range ~ Rangeland that is not grazed by livestock because of barriers, 

distance to water or steep slopes. 

Increaser (Plant) ~ Plant species of the original vegetation that increase in relative 

amount, at least for a time, under continued disturbance (heavy defoliation, fire, drought) 

to the norm. 

Indigenous Species ~ Animals or plants that originated in the area in which they are 

found; for example, animals or plants that were not introduced after frontier settlement of 

the Northern Great Plains and that naturally occur on the Northern Great Plains. 

Indirect Effects ~ Environmental effects caused by an action, but resulting later in time 

or farther away in place, yet which are still reasonably foreseeable. 

In-holdings ~ Lands within the proclaimed boundaries of a national forest or national 

grassland that are owned by some other agency, organization, or individual. 

Instream Flows ~ The minimum water volume (cubic feet per second) in each stream 

necessary to meet seasonal stream flow requirements for maintaining aquatic ecosystems, 

visual quality, recreational opportunities, and other uses. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

150 

Intensive Grazing Management ~ Grazing management that attempts to increase 

production or utilization per unit area or production per animal through a relative increase 

in stocking rates, forage utilization, labor, resources, or capital. Intensive grazing 

management is not synonymous with rotation grazing. Grazing management can be 

intensified by using any one or more of a number of grazing methods that use relatively 

more labor or capital resources. 

Intermittent Stream ~ (1) A stream that flows only 50 to 90 percent of the year when it 

receives water from some surface source, such as melting snow; (2) a stream that does 

not flow continuously, as when water losses from evaporation or seepage exceed the 

available stream flow. 

Introduced Species ~ A species not a part of the original fauna or flora of the area in 

question. 

Invader (Plant) ~ Plant species that were absent in undisturbed portions of the original 

vegetation of a specific range site and will invade or increase following disturbance or 

continued heavy grazing. 

Invasive Plant ~ A species that displays rapid growth and spread, free from natural 

controls and enhanced by abundant seed production and germination. 

Key Area ~ (1) An area selected to monitor the effects of management activities on 

ecosystem health. Examples may include, but are not limited to, uplands, riparian areas, 

and valley bottoms; (2) that portion of a pasture or grazing unit which is selected as a 

monitoring point because of its location, use, or grazing value. 

Land Exchange ~ The conveyance of non-Federal land or interests to the United States 

in exchange for National Forest System land, including national grasslands, or interests in 

such land. 

Land Unit ~ A mapped land type polygon or a mapped soil unit. 

Listed Species ~ Any species of fish, wildlife, or plant officially designated as 

endangered or threatened by the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce. 

Litter ~ A surface layer of loose organic debris consisting of freshly fallen or slightly 

decomposed organic materials. 

Livestock ~ Domestic animals. 

Livestock Use Permit ~ Used to document specific animal numbers, class, and seasons 

of use under a specified management plan for a given period (10 years). 

Logging ~ Harvest of trees of given size from a forest. 

Management Area ~ Area of the grassland that are managed for a particular emphasis. 

These areas have common management direction and may be non contiguous on the 

national forest or national grassland. 

Management Indicator Species ~ A plant or animal species selected because their status 

is believed to (1) be indicative of the status of a larger functional group of species, (2) be 

reflective of the status of a key habitat type, or (3) act as an early warning of an 

anticipated stressor to ecological integrity. The key characteristic of a MIS species is that 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

151 

its status and trend provide insights to the integrity of the larger ecological system to 

which it belongs. 

Management Indicators (Fish and Wildlife) ~ Plant or animal species or habitat 

components selected in a planning process used to monitor the effects of planned 

management activities on populations of wildlife and fish, including those that are 

socially or economically important. 

Marginal Land ~ Land of questionable physical or economic capabilities for sustaining 

a specific use. 

Market Value ~ The unit price of an output normally exchanged in a market after at least 

one stage of production, expressed in terms of what people are willing to pay as 

evidenced by market transactions. 

Meadow ~ (1) An area of perennial herbaceous vegetation, usually grass or glasslike, 

used primarily for hay production; (2) openings in forests and grasslands of exceptional 

productivity in arid regions, usually resulting from high water content of the soil 

(streamside situations, areas having a perched water table). 

Migration ~ The movement of genotypes (as individuals) into or out of a population. 

Mitigate ~ To lessen the severity. 

Mitigation ~ Includes avoiding an impact by not taking certain actions; minimizing 

impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; 

rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 

reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action; and compensating for the impact by replacing or providing 

substitute resources or environments. 

Mitigation (Cultural Resources) ~ Actions taken to reduce or eliminate adverse effects 

caused to cultural resources. Avoidance is not considered a mitigation measure. 

Monitoring and Evaluation ~ The sample collection and analysis of information 

regarding LRMP management practices to determine how well objectives have been met, 

as well as the effects of those management practices on the land and environment. 

Multiple Use ~ According to the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, multiple use 

is the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forest 

System, including national grasslands, so that they are utilized in the combination that 

will best meet the needs of the American people. Such management makes the most 

judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas 

large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to 

changing needs and conditions. Some lands will be used for less than all of the resources. 

Harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources is employed, each 

with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land. Consideration is given 

to the relative values of the various resources and not necessarily the combination of uses 

that gives the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) ~ An act declaring a national 

policy to encourage productive harmony between people and their environment, to 

promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and the 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

152 

biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of people and to enrich the understanding 

of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation and to establish a 

Council on Environmental Quality. 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) ~ A 1976 law that amended the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and requires the preparation of Regional 

and Forest Plans and regulations to guide Forest Plan development. 

National Forest System (NFS) Lands ~ Federal lands designated by Executive order or 

statute as national forests, national grasslands, or purchase units, or other lands under the 

administration of the U.S. Forest Service. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) ~ A list of heritage resources that have 

local, state, or national significance maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Native ~ A plant or animal indigenous to a particular locality. 

Native Seed ~ Seeds of plants considered indigenous to the Northern Great Plains. 

Natural ~ Occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature. An area having 

undergone no, or at least minimal, disturbance by anthropogenic forces. 

Natural Barrier ~ A natural feature that will restrict livestock movements, such as a 

dense stand of trees or downfall, or a feature that will stop the spread of fire, such as a 

talus slope, water course, or areas otherwise devoid of fuel. 

NEPA Process ~ Means all measures necessary for compliance with the requirements of 

section 2 and Title I of NEPA. 

Niche ~ The ecological role of a species in a community. 

No Adverse Effect (Cultural Resources) ~ Any effect on a heritage resource that would 

not be considered harmful to those characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion 

in the National Register of Historic Places. 

No Effect (Cultural Resources) ~ No effect to those characteristics that qualify the 

property for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 

Non-point Source Pollution ~ Pollution whose source is not specific in location. The 

sources of the pollutant discharge are dispersed, not well-defined or constant. Examples 

include sediments from logging activities and runoff from agricultural chemicals. 

Noxious Weeds ~ Those plant species designated as weeds by Federal or State laws. 

Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive 

and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host for serious insects or 

diseases, and generally non-native. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) or Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) ~ Any motorized vehicle 

designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, snow, 

ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain. 

Overgrazing ~ Continued heavy grazing that exceeds the recovery capacity of the 

community and creates a deteriorated range. 

Overstocking ~ Placing a number of animals on a given area that will result in overuse if 

continued to the end of the planned grazing period. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

153 

Pasture ~ A land area consisting of grass or other growing plants used as food by grazing 

animals. Also an area used for grazing, often enclosed and separated from other areas by 

fences, hedges, ditches, or walls. 

Perennial (plant) ~ A plant that lives for 2 or more years. 

Perennial Streams ~ Streams that flow continuously throughout most years. 

Permitted Grazing ~ Use of a National Forest System range allotment under the terms 

of a grazing permit. 

Permittee (Grazing) ~ One who holds a permit to graze livestock on State, Federal, or 

certain privately owned lands. 

Plant Communities ~ Assemblages of plant species living in an area. A plant 

community is an organized unit to the extent that it has characteristics in addition to the 

individuals and populations and functions as a unit. 

Potential Natural Community (PNC) ~ A taxonomic unit of vegetation classification. 

The biotic community that would be established under present environmental conditions 

if all successional sequences were completed without additional human-caused 

disturbances. Natural disturbances, such as drought, flood, wildfire, grazing by native 

fauna, and insect and disease infestations, are inherent in the development of potential 

natural communities, which may include naturalized, non-native species. 

Prehistoric Site ~ Archeology sites associated with American Indians and usually 

occurring before contact with Europeans. 

Present Net Value (PNV) ~ The difference between the discounted value (benefits) of 

all outputs to which monetary values or established market prices are assigned and the 

total discounted costs of managing the planning area. 

Primary Grazing Areas ~ Areas that animals prefer to use and over which they will 

graze when management is limited. The area on which overuse will occur before 

secondary range is used when animals are allowed to shift for themselves. 

Productivity ~ The total quantity of organic material produced within a given period by 

organisms or the energy that this represents, such as gram-calories per square centimeter 

per year. The innate capacity of an environment to produce plant and animal life. The 

capacity of a soil to produce a certain kind of crop under a defined set of management 

conditions. 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) ~ Riparian/wetland areas achieve proper 

functioning condition when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is 

present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows. This reduces erosion; 

improves water quality; filters sediment; captures bed load; aids floodplain development; 

improves floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; develops root masses that 

stabilize stream banks against cutting action; develops diverse ponding and channel 

characteristics to provide habitat and water depth, duration, and temperature necessary 

for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and supports greater biodiversity. 

The functioning condition of riparian/wetland areas is a result of the interaction among 

geology, soil, water, and vegetation. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

154 

Proposed Action ~ In terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, the project, 

activity, or action that a Federal agency intends to implement or undertake and which is 

the subject of an environmental analysis. 

Public Involvement ~ A Forest Service process designed to broaden the information 

base upon which agency decisions are made. It includes the following steps: 

 Informing the public of Forest Service activities, plans, and decisions. 

 Encouraging public understanding about the participation in the planning 

processes that lead to final decision-making. 

Range ~ Any land supporting vegetation suitable for grazing including rangeland, 

grazable woodland, and shrubland. 

Range Allotment ~ A designated area of land available for livestock grazing upon which 

a specified number and kind of livestock may be grazed under a range allotment 

management plan. It is the basic land unit used to facilitate management of the range 

resource on National Forest System lands, including national grasslands, and other 

associated lands administered by the Forest Service. 

Range Analysis ~ Systematic acquisition and evaluation of rangeland resources data 

needed for allotment management planning and overall land management. 

Range Condition ~ (1) A rangeland is considered to be in satisfactory condition when 

the desired condition is being met or short-term vegetative objectives are being achieved 

to move the rangeland toward the desired condition or trend. Unsatisfactory condition is 

when the desired condition is not being met and short-term vegetative objectives are not 

being achieved to move the rangeland toward the desired condition or trend. (2) 

Historically, range condition usually has been defined in one of two ways: (a) a generic 

term relating to present status of a unit of range in terms of specific values or potentials. 

Specific values or potentials must be stated, or (b) the present state of vegetation of a 

range site in relation to the climax (natural potential) plant community for that site. It is 

an expression of the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions and amounts of plants 

in a plant community resemble that of the climax plant for the site. 

Range Development, Nonstructural ~ Any practice designed to improve range 

condition or facilitate more efficient utilization of the range. 

Range Development, Structural ~ Any structure or excavation to facilitate management 

of range or livestock. 

Range Management ~ A distinct discipline founded on ecological principles and dealing 

with the use of rangelands and range resources for a variety of purposes. These purposes 

include use as watersheds, wildlife habitat, grazing by livestock, recreation, and 

aesthetics, as well as associated uses. Two kinds of range management can be described: 

Extensive range management carries the goal to control livestock numbers within the 

present capacity of the range, but little or no attempt is made to achieve uniform 

distribution of livestock. Range management investments are minimal and only to the 

extent needed to maintain stewardship of the range in the presence of grazing. Past 

resource damage is corrected and resources are protected from natural catastrophes. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

155 

Intensive range management carries the goal to maintain full plant vigor and to achieve 

full livestock utilization of available forage. This goal is achieved through 

implementation of improved grazing systems and construction and installation of range 

improvements. Cultural practices, such as seeding and fertilizing, to improve forage 

quality and quantity may be used. 

Range Readiness ~ Indicators used to determine rangeland readiness are soils and 

vegetation conditions. Rangelands are generally ready for grazing when soils have 

become firm after winter and spring precipitation, and when plants have reached the 

defined stage of growth at which grazing many begin under the specific management 

plan without long-lasting damage 

Rangeland ~ Lands on which the native vegetation is predominately grasses, grass-like 

plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing usage. Includes lands revegetated 

naturally or artificially to provide a forage cover that is managed like native vegetation. 

Rangeland Health ~ The degree to which the integrity of the soil, the vegetation, the 

water, and air as well as the ecological processes of the rangeland ecosystem is balanced 

and sustained. Integrity is defined as: Maintenance of the structure and functional 

attributes characteristic of a particular locale, including normal variability. 

Rare Communities ~ A ranking system used by The Nature Conservancy to assess 

relative endangerment. Community types are ranked on a global, national, and state scale 

of 1 to 5. A rank of G1 (Global 1) indicates that a community type is critically imperiled 

globally to rarity, endemism, and/or threats. A rank of G5 indicates little to no risk of 

global elimination. Similar definitions apply to national and state rankings. 

Residual Cover ~ Standing or lodged herbaceous vegetation left after livestock grazing 

and killing frost. 

Responsible Official ~ The Forest Service employee who has the delegated authority to 

make a specific decision. 

Rest ~ To leave an area of rangeland ungrazed by livestock or unharvested by 

mechanical methods for at least one year (12 consecutive months). 

Rest Rotation (Livestock Grazing) ~ An intensive system of management where 

grazing is deferred on various parts of the range during succeeding years, allowing the 

deferred part complete rest for one year. At least two, but usually three or more, separate 

grazing units are required. 

Restoration ~ Holistic actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve desired, healthy, 

and functioning conditions and processes. Generally refers to the process of enabling the 

system to resume its resiliency to disturbances. 

Revegetation ~ The reestablishment and development of plant cover. This may take 

place naturally through the reproductive processes of the existing flora or artificially 

through reforestation or reseeding. 

Rhizome ~ A horizontal underground stem, usually sending out roots and above-ground 

shoots from the nodes. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

156 

Riparian ~ The bands and adjacent areas of water bodies, water courses, seeps, and 

springs whose waters provide soil moisture in excess of what is locally available. This 

results in a moister habitat than that found on the contiguous flood plains and uplands. 

Refers to land bordering a stream, lake, or tidewater, and generally implies a particular 

type of habitat physiognomy often characterized by an over story of trees or other large 

woody plants with a complex under story of other woody and/or herbaceous species. 

Riparian Area ~ Areas of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems with distinctive resource 

values and characteristics that are geographically delineated (FSM 2526). Ecological 

units with distinctive vegetation, landform, soil, and water regimes consisting of the 

aquatic ecosystem and wet-to-moist areas located between aquatic ecosystems and 

adjacent terrestrial ecosystems. Includes floodplains and wetlands. Riparian ecosystems 

are distinguished by soil characteristics and distinctive existing or potential vegetation 

communities that are adapted to soils with consistently high levels of moisture. 

Riparian Communities ~ Repeating, classified, defined and recognizable assemblages 

of plant or animal communities associated with riparian areas. 

Riparian Ecosystem ~ A transition between the aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent 

upland terrestrial ecosystem. It is identified by soil characteristics and by distinctive 

vegetative communities that require free or unbounded water. 

Rotation ~ The planned number of years between the formation or regeneration of a crop 

or stand and its final cutting at a specified stage of maturity. 

Rotation Grazing ~ A grazing scheme where animals are moved from one grazing unit 

(paddock) in the same group of grazing units to another without regard to specific 

graze/rest periods or levels or plant defoliation. 

Runoff ~ The total stream discharge of water, including both surface and subsurface 

flow, usually expressed in acre-feet of water yield. 

Scoping Process ~ An early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be 

addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action. 

Identifying the significant environmental issues deserving of study and de-emphasizing 

insignificant issues, narrows the scope of the environmental impact statement 

accordingly. 

Season-long Grazing (Livestock Grazing) ~ Allowing livestock to graze a single 

pasture throughout one growing season. 

Sediment ~ Material suspended in water or deposited in streams and lakes. 

Sediment Load ~ The solid material transported by a stream and expressed as the dry 

weight of all sediment that passes a given point in a given period of time. 

Sediment Yield ~ Amount of sediment leaving an analysis area and entering a channel. 

Self-sustaining Fish Population ~ A reproducing fish population that does not require 

supplemental hatchery stocking. 

Sensitive Species ~ Those plant and animal species identified by Regional Foresters for 

which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by the following: 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

157 

 Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or 

density. 

 Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would 

reduce a species' existing distribution. 

Significant Archeological Sites ~ Sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places as determined by the Forest Service in consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer. 

Similarity Coefficient~ The mathematical coefficient generated by the comparison of 

existing vegetation and soil conditions to either potential natural community or desired 

plant community. Range condition is considered satisfactory with a similarity coefficient 

score of 65% or greater (USDA Forest Service 1996b). 

Site Productivity ~ Production capability of specific areas of land. 

Soil Compaction ~ A physical change in soil properties those results in a decrease in 

porosity and an increase in soil bulk density and strength. 

Soil Erosion ~ The detachment and movement of soil from the land surface by water or 

wind. Soil erosion and sediment are not the same. 

Soil Productivity ~ The inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified 

plants, plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity may be 

expressed in terms of volume or weight/unit area/year, percent plant cover, or other 

measures of biomass accumulation. 

Soil Profile ~ A vertical section of the soil from the surface down through all of its layers 

into the parent material. 

Soil Survey ~ A general term for the systematic examination of soils in the field and in 

laboratories; their description and classification; the mapping of soil types; the 

interpretation of soils according to their adaptability for various crops, grasses, and trees; 

their response to treatment for plant production or for other purposes; and their 

productivity under different management systems. 

Species ~ A group of potentially interbreeding populations that is reproductively isolated 

from other such groups. 

Species of Local Concern ~ Species that do not meet the criteria for sensitive species 

status but may have declining trends in the Black Hills or those that are important 

components of diversity in the Black Hills. 

Species Composition ~ The proportions of various plant species in relation to the total 

on a given area. It may be expressed in terms of cover, density, weight, etc. 

Species Diversity ~ A measurement that relates the density of individuals of a species in 

a habitat to the number of different species present in the habitat. The number of different 

species in a given habitat. 

Species Viability ~ A species consisting of self-sustaining and interacting populations 

that are well distributed through the species' range. Self-sustaining populations are those 

that are sufficiently abundant and have sufficient diversity to display the array of life 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

158 

history strategies and forms to provide for their long-term persistence and adaptability 

over time. 

Static ~ Staying the same. 

Stewardship ~ Caring for land and associated resources and passing healthy ecosystems 

to future generations. 

Stocking Rate (Livestock Management) ~ The actual number of animals, expressed in 

either animal units or animal unit months, on a specific area for a specific time. 

Stream Bank Alteration ~ Stream bank alteration consists of physical alteration of the 

bank by trampling that exposes bare soil. 

Stream Bank Stability ~ Stream bank stability refers to long-term bank structure, 

expressed as a percentage of the stream bank in one of six stability classes (Cowley and 

Burton 2005b). It is intended for long-term trend monitoring and is read on 3 to 5 year 

intervals. This method includes damage from natural processes, such as floods, and 

human caused impacts, such as mining or recreation vehicle crossings, as well as from 

livestock. 

Stream Health ~ The condition of a stream versus reference conditions for the stream 

type and geology, using metrics such as channel geometry, large woody debris, substrate, 

bank stability, flow regime, water chemistry, and aquatic biota. 

Stream Health Class. A category of stream health. Three classes are recognized in the 

Rocky Mountain Region: robust, at-risk and diminished. These classes are 

recommended to be used for assessing long-term stream health and impacts from 

management activities (USDA Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – Watershed 

Conservation Practices, R2 Amendment 2006). 

 Robust. Stream exhibits high geomorphic, hydrologic and/or biotic integrity 

relative to its natural potential condition (as represented by a suitable reference 

condition). For a quantitative analysis, high integrity is indicated by conditions 

that are 74 – 100% of a reference condition (after Plafkin et. al., 1989; EPA, 

1999; CDPHE, 2002). Physical, chemical and/or biologic conditions suggest that 

State assigned water quality (beneficial, designated or classified) uses are 

supported. 

 At-Risk. Stream exhibits moderate geomorphic, hydrologic and/or biotic integrity 

relative to its natural potential condition (as represented by a suitable reference 

condition). For a quantitative analysis, moderate integrity is indicated by 

conditions that are 59 – 73 % of a reference condition (after Plafkin et. al, 

1989; EPA, 1999; CDPHE, 2002). Physical, chemical and/or biologic conditions 

suggest that State assigned water quality (beneficial, designated or classified) uses 

are at risk and may be threatened. 

 Diminished. Stream exhibits low geomorphic, hydrologic and/or biotic integrity 

relative to its natural potential condition (as represented by a suitable reference 

condition). For a quantitative analysis, low integrity is indicated by conditions 

that are less than 58% of a reference condition (after Plafkin et. al., 1989; EPA, 

1999; CDPHE, 2002). Physical, chemical and/or biologic conditions suggest that 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

159 

State assigned water quality (beneficial, designated or classified) uses may not be 

supported. 

Stream Order ~ A classification of the relative position of streams in a channel network. 

Each non-branching channel segment is designated as a first-order stream. The channel 

segment below the confluence of the two first-order tributaries. The channel segment 

below the confluence of two second-order streams is designated a third-order stream, etc. 

Stream Type ~ A class of stream reach having a discrete combination of valley 

geomorphology and climate, flow regime, stream size, and channel morphology, which 

differs from other stream types in its ability to support biota and respond to management. 

Suitable Lands ~ Lands that are appropriate for the application of certain resource 

management practices as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental 

consequences and the alternative uses foregone. 

Suitable Rangeland ~ The appropriateness of applying certain resource management 

practices to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and 

environmental consequences and the alternative uses forgone. A unit of land may be 

suitable for a variety of individual or combined management practices. 

Suspended Sediment ~ The very fine soil particles that remain suspended in water for a 

considerable period of time without contact with the bottom of the channel. 

Tiering ~ Refers to the elimination of repetitive discussions of the same issue by 

referencing the general discussion in an environmental impact statement of broader 

scope. For example, a project environmental assessment could be tiered to the Forest Plan 

EIS. 

TMDL ~ Total maximum daily load. 

Topography ~ The configuration of a land surface including its relief, elevation, and the 

position of its natural and human-made features. 

Traditional Use Areas ~ An area that is significant to a living community because of its 

association with cultural practices or beliefs that are rooted in the community's history 

and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. 

Trampling ~ Treading underfoot. The damage to plants or soil brought about by 

movements or congestion of animals. 

Travel Management ~ Travel management is the movement of people and products to 

and through national forests and national grasslands. It connects many different varieties 

of user and multiple uses on National Forest System lands. 

Trespass ~ The act of going on another's land or property unlawfully. 

Undesirable Species ~ (1) Species that conflict with or do not contribute to the 

management objectives, (2) species that are not readily eaten by animals. 

Ungulate ~ A hoofed animal, including ruminants (cattle, but also horses, tapirs, 

elephants, rhinoceroses, and swine). 

Unpalatable Species (Range Management) ~ Plant species that are not readily eaten by 

an ungulate animal. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

160 

Utilization Levels (Livestock Grazing) ~ The portion of the current year's forage 

production by weight consumed or trampled by livestock. Utilization levels are usually 

expressed as a percentage. 

Vegetative Management ~ Any activities undertaken to modify the existing condition of 

the vegetation. 

Viable Population ~ A group of individuals of a particular species that produces enough 

offspring for long-term persistence and adaptation of the species or population in a given 

place. For planning purposes, 36 CFR 219.19 defines a viable population as one that has 

the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure that a 

continued viable population is well-distributed in the planning area. A planning area is 

further defined by 36 CFR 219.3 as the “area of the National Forest System covered by a 

regional guide or forest plan.” Direction estimated numbers and distribution of 

reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout its 

existing range (or range required to meet recovery for listed species) within the planning 

area. 

Warm-Season Plant ~ A plant that makes most or all its growth during the spring, 

summer, or fall and is usually dormant in winter. A plant that usually exhibits the C4 

photosynthetic pathway. 

Water Development ~ A facility constructed or placed to hold water for livestock use. 

Water Influence Zone ~ The water influence zone (WIZ) includes the geomorphic 

floodplain, riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge. Its minimum horizontal width (from top 

of each bank) is the greater of 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral 

vegetation. It includes adjacent unstable and highly-erodible soils. The WIZ protects 

interacting aquatic, riparian, and upland functions by maintaining natural processes and 

resilience of soil, water, and vegetation systems. 

Water Rights ~ Rights given by State and Federal governments for the diversion and use 

of water. 

Water Table ~ The upper surface of the ground water or that level below which the soil 

is saturated with water. 

Waters of the United States ~ Waters used for navigation and all other waters such as 

lakes, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, 

prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, and their tributaries. 

Watershed ~ The area of land, bounded by a divide, that drains water, sediment, and 

dissolved materials to a common outlet at some point along a stream channel (Dunne and 

Leopold 1978), or to a lake, reservoir, or other body of water. Also called drainage basin 

or catchment. 

Watershed Condition. The state of a watershed based on physical and biological 

characteristics and processes affecting hydrologic and soil functions (USDA Forest 

Service Manual 2500,Chapter 2520 - Water. 

 Class I Condition. Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic 

integrity relative to their natural potential condition. The drainage network is 

generally stable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

161 

aquatic, and riparian systems are predominantly functional in terms of supporting 

beneficial uses. 

 Class II Condition. Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and 

biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the 

watershed may exhibit an unstable drainage network. Physical, chemical, and 

biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in 

being able to support beneficial uses. 

 Class III Condition. Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic 

integrity relative to their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage 

network may be unstable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest 

that soil, riparian, and aquatic systems do not support beneficial uses. 

Weed ~ Any plant growing where unwanted and having a negative value. 

Wet Meadow ~ A meadow where the surface remains wet or moist throughout the 

growing season, usually characterized by sedges and rushes. 

Wetland Communities ~ Plant communities that occur on sites with soils typically 

saturated with or covered with water most of the growing season. 

Wetlands ~ Those areas that are inundated by surface water or groundwater with a 

frequency sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do or would support, a 

prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil 

conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, 

bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, 

mudflats, and natural ponds. 

Wildfire ~ Any wild land fire not designated and managed as a prescribed fire within an 

approved prescription. An appropriate suppression action will be applied to all wildfires. 

Wildlife ~ Collectively the no domesticated vertebrate animals, except fishes. The 

natural community of animals. 

Winter Range ~ Rangeland that is grazed during the winter months. 

Xeric ~ Having very little moisture; tolerating or adapted to dry conditions. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

162 

CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION AND 

COORDINATION 

Consultation and Coordination _____________________ 

Federal, State, and County Officials and Agencies 

Custer County Commissioners 

Custer County Highway Department 

Fall River County Commissioners 

Pennington County Commissioners 

South Dakota Division of Forestry 

South Dakota Department of Forestry 

South Dakota Department of Natural 

Resources 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

South Dakota Department of 

Transportation 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 

USDI National Park Service, Jewel Cave 

National Monument 

Tribes 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

Fladreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

Grey Eagle Society 

Kiowa Ethnographic Endeaver for 

Preservation 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

Manda, Kidatsa, and Arikara Nation 

Northern Arapaho Tribe 

Oglala Sioux Tribe 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

Santee Sioux Nation 

Sicangu Lakota Treaty Council Office 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe 

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

Yankton Sioux Tribe 

Others 

Approximately 40 additional contacts, including elected officials, environmental groups, 

and other interested parties were made during the scoping period for this project to solicit 

issues and concerns with the proposed action. 

List of Preparers _________________________________ 

Preparer 

Deborah Lutch McGlothlin, Environmental Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, TEAMS 

Enterprise Unit, for the Black Hills National Forest. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

163 

Contributors and Reviewers 

Forest Service personnel that contributed to or reviewed this document are listed below. 

Reviewer/ 

Contributor Title Contribution/Responsibility 

USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest 

Jeff Tomac Range Program Lead and Project 

Coordinator 

Purpose and Need, Alternative 

Descriptions, Rangeland Vegetation 

Lucas Bindel Range Conservationist and Project 

Coordinator 

Purpose and Need, Alternative 

Descriptions, Rangeland Vegetation, 

Noxious Weeds, Socioeconomics 

Meghan Reedy Range Conservationist Socioeconomics 

John Rongstad Geographic Information Systems Maps 

Steve Hirtzel Fisheries Biologist Fisheries 

Cynthia Englebert Former Botanist Botany 

Matthew Scott Botanist Botany 

Michael Engelhart Archaeologist Cultural Resources 

Tracy Clark Wildlife Biologist Wildlife 

Les Gonyer Hydrologist Soils and Water 

Lynn Kolund District Ranger Purpose and Need, Alternatives, Design 

Criteria, Monitoring 

Craig Beckner Forest Rangelands Program Manager Purpose and Need, Alternatives, Design 

Criteria, Rangeland Vegetation, Climate 

Change 

USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit 

Maple Taylor Writer-Editor Document Editing 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

164 

CHAPTER 5 – REFERENCES 

Analysis Documents Used For this Assessment 

This EA is based upon analysis prepared in the following reports for the Hell Canyon 

Range 2010 Project (these reports are available in the project record). 

 Soil and Water Report (Gonyer 2010) 

 Rangeland Vegetation Report and methane production calculation (Bindel 2010a 

and 2010b) 

 Wildlife Report and Biological Assessment and Evaluation (Clark 2010a and 

Clark 2010b) 

 Botany Report and Biological Assessment and Evaluation (Englebert 2010 and 

Scott 2010) 

 Fisheries Report (Hirtzel 2010) 

 Cultural Resource Report (Engelhart 2010) 

 Socioeconomics Report (Reedy 2010) 

References 

Anderson, E.W.; Franzen, D.L.; Melland, J.E. 1990. Forage quality as influenced by 

prescribed grazing. General Technical Report RM-194, USDA Forest Service Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Anderson, T. 2003. Conservation assessment of woodpeckers in the Black Hills National 

Forest. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 176 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/woodpeckers.pdf. 

Ash, A.J.; Stafford Smith, D.M. 1996. Evaluating stocking rate impacts in rangelands: 

Animals don’t practice what we preach. Rangelands Journal 18: 216–243. 

Bailey, D.W.; Gross, J.E.; Laca, E.A.; [and others]. 1996. Mechanisms that result in large 

herbivore distribution patterns. Journal of Range Management 49: 386–401. 

Beecham, J. J. Jr., C.P. Collins, and T. D. Reynolds. (2007, February 12). Rocky 

Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. 

[Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf. 

Belica, L.T.; Nibbelink, N.P. 2006. Mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): A 

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf 

Belsky, A.J.; Matzke, A.; Uselman, S. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream 

and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation 54: 419–431. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

165 

Benzon, T. South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Big Game Biologist, personal 

communication with Tracy Clark. 2010 

Bock, C.; Saab, V.; Rich, T.; Dobkin, D. 1992. Effects of livestock grazing on 

neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. In: Finch; D.; Stangel, P. 

Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. GTR-RM-229, USDA Forest 

Service, Fort Collins, CO. 

Brewer, T. K.; Mosley, J.C.; Lucas, D.E.; [and others]. 2007. Bluebunch wheatgrass 

response to spring defoliation on foothill rangeland. Rangeland Ecology & Management 

60(5). 

Briske, D.D.; Richards, J.H. 1994. Physiological responses of individual plants to 

grazing: Current status and ecological significance. In: Ecological implication of 

livestock herbivory in the West. Vavra, M.; Laycock, W.A.; Pieper, R.D. (editors). 

Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. 

Briske, D.D.; Richards, J.H. 1995. Plant responses to defoliation: A physiological, 

morphological, and demographic evaluation. In: Wildland plants: Physiological ecology 

and developmental morphology. Bedunah, D.J.; Sosebee, R.E. (editors). Society for 

Range Management, Denver CO. 

Briske, D.D., J.D. Derner, J.R. Brown, S.D. Fuhlendorf, W.R. Teague, K.M. Havstad, 

R.L. Gillen, A.J. Ash, and W.D. Willms. 2008. Rotational Grazing on Rangelands: 

Reconciliation of Perception and Experimental Evidence. Rangeland Ecology 

Management 61:3-17 

Brown, C.; Rire, W.; LaBrecque, S.; [and others]. 2008. Climate change and site-specific 

range allotment analysis white paper, November. Unpublished internal report, Sawtooth 

National Forest. 

Brown, R. 2008. The implications of climate change for conservation, restoration, and 

management of national forest lands. University of Oregon. Eugene, OR. 

Burton, T.A., E.R. Cowley, and S.J. Smith. April 2007. Idaho Technical Bulletin 2007-

01, Monitoring Stream Channel and Riparian Vegetation Multiple Indicators. Version 

3.0. 

Buskirk, S. W. 2002. Conservation Assessment for the American Marten in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 51 pp. 

Cannings, R.J. 1993. Northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus). In: The birds of North 

America, No. 42. Poole, A.; Gill, F. (editors). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Carlson, Joan. 2010. Livestock Grazing and Bacterial Water Quality - Supporting 

documentation for the Rocky Mountain Region Bacteria Analysis Strategy for Rangeland 

Management Projects 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

166 

Clary, W.P.; Webster, B.F. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the 

Intermountain Region. General Technical Report INT-263, USDA Forest Service 

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 

Coyne, P.I., Trlica, M.J.; Owensby, C.E. 1995. Carbon and nitrogen dynamics in range 

plants. In: Wildland plants: Physiological ecology and developmental morphology. 

Bedunah, D.J.; Sosebee, R.E. (editors). Society for Range Management, Denver CO. 

Cryan, P.; Bogan, M.; Yanega, G. 2001. Roosting habits of four bat species in the Black 

Hills of South Dakota. Acta Chiropterologica 3: 43–52. 

DeKeyser, S.; Clambey, G.; Krabbenhoft, K.; [and others]. 2009. Are changes in species 

composition on central North Dakota rangelands due to non-use management? 

Rangelands Journal 31(6): 16–19. 

Edmond, D.B. 1966. Influence of animal treading on pasture growth. Pages 453–458; In:

Proceedings of the 10th International Grasslands Congress. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. National management measures for 

control of nonpoint pollution from agriculture. EPA-841-B-03-004. Online: 

http://www.epa.gov/nps/agmm/

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Global climate change information. 

Accessed on May 15, 2009 [http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html] 

Erickson, M. G. 1987. Nest Site Habitat Selection of the Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in 

the Black Hills National Forest of South Dakota. M.A. Thesis, University of South 

Dakota, Vermillion. 49 pp. 

Esser, Lora L. 1993. Phleum pretense. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Science Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ 

Farrar, D. 2004. Personal communication with Deanna Reyher; Professor of Botany, 

Iowa State University, expert in Botrychium systematics. January 20. 

Ford, R.C. 1988. Black Hills stream inventory and classification 1984 and 1985. Report 

No. 88-1, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. 

Frest, T.J.; Johannes, E.J. 2002. Land snail survey of the Black Hills National Forest, 

South Dakota and Wyoming summary report, 1991–2001. USDA Forest Service, Black 

Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 127 p. 

Frison, George C. 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Second ed. Academic 

Press, Inc., San Diego, California. 

Ghalambor, C. 2003. Conservation assessment of the pygmy nuthatch in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain 

Region, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/pygmy_nuthatch.pdf

Giroir G.; White, C.; Sparks, R. 2007. Monitoring the birds of the Black Hills, 2007 field 

season report. Technical Report M-MBBH07-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 

Brighton, CO. 81 p. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

167 

Goodman, Ronald. 1992. Lakota Star Knowledge: Studies in Lakota Stellar Theology. 

Second ed. Siŋte Gleska University, Mission, South Dakota.Gove, P.B. 1966. Webster’s 

Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. G.&C. 

Merriam Company, Springfield MA. 

Graves, H.I. 1899. The Black Hills Forest Reserve (South Dakota and Wyoming). Ann. 

Rep. U.S. Geol. Surv. (for 1897-98) 19:pg70 

Heady, H.F. 1961. Continuous vs specialized grazing systems: A review and application 

to California annual type. Journal of Range Management 14: 182–193. 

Heady, H.F.; Child, D.R. 1994. Rangeland ecology and management. Westview Press, 

Boulder, CO. 

Higgins, K.F.; Stukel, E.D.; Goulet, J.M.; [and others]. 2000. Wild mammals of South 

Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, SD. 278 p. 

Holechek, J.L., Pieper, R.D.; Herbel, C.H. 1995. Range management: Principals and 

practices. Second Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 

Holechek, J.L., Pieper, R.D.; Herbel, C.H. 2001. Range management: Principles and 

practices. Fourth Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 587 p. 

Holechek, J.L., Pieper, R.D.; Herbel, C.H. 2004. Range management: Principles and 

practices. Fifth Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 607 p. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: 

Mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the 

intergovernmental panel on climate change [Metz, B.; Davidson, O.R.; P.R. Bosch, P.R.; 

[and others] (editors)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and 

New York, NY. Online via: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm

Isaak, D.J.; Hubert, W.A.; Berry, C.R., Jr. 2003. Conservation assessment for lake chub, 

mountain sucker, and finescale dace in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and 

Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 64 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/

Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles and falcons of North America. Smithsonian 

Institute Press, Washington DC. 403 p. 

Johnson, C.G. 2007. Rangeland exclosures of northeastern Oregon: The stories they tell 

(1936–2004). PNW-GTR-724, USDA Forest Service 33 p. 

Jones, T.A., Ralphs, M.H., Gardner, D.R., and N.J. Chatterton. 2000. Cattle prefer 

endophyte-free robust needlegrass. J. Range Manage. 53:427-431.Joy, S. M. 1990. 

Feeding ecology of sharp-shinned hawks and nest-site characteristics of accipiters in 

Colorado. Masters Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 

Kauffman J.B., W.C. Krueger and M. Vavra 1983. Effects of cattle grazing on riparian 

plant communities. J. Range Manage. 36:685-691. 

Kauffman J.B. and W.C. Krueger 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and 

streamside management implications...a review. J. Range Manage. 37(5): 430-437. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

168 

King, Tony, Michael Engelhart and Ami Schlosser. 2008. A Cultural Resource Survey of 

the Three-16 Range Analysis Are in the Black Hills National Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger 

District, Custer County, South Dakota. On file, USDA Forest Service, Hell Canyon 

Ranger District, Custer, South Dakota. 

King, Tony, Justin Hammer, Ami Schlosser, Jared Fisher, Brandy Feaster, Jess Gisler, 

and Stacy Moore. 2009. A Cultural Resource Survey of the Range 2009 Analysis Area in 

the Black Hills National Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger District. Custer and Pennington 

Counties, South Dakota. On file, USDA Forest Service, Hell Canyon Ranger District, 

Custer, South Dakota. 

Kingery, H.E.; Ghalambor, C.K. 2001. Pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea). In: The birds of 

North America, No. 567. A. Poole, A.; Gill, F. (editors). The Birds of North America, 

Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 

Larson, G. E.; J.R. Johnson. August 1999. Plants of the Black Hills and Bear Lodge 

Mountains. Brookings, SD. South Dakota State University.Laycock, W.A. 1994. 

Implication of grazing vs no grazing on today’s rangelands. In: Ecological implications 

of livestock herbivore in the West. Vavra, M.; Laycock, W.A.; Pieper, R.D. (editors). 

Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. 

MacIntosh, A.C. 1928. Additions to the Flora of the Black Hills of South Dakota. The 

Black Hills Engineer. Vol. 16:2. pp.161. South Dakota School of Mines, Rapid City, 

SD.Madany, M.H.; West, N.E. 1983. Livestock grazing-fire regime interactions within 

montane forests of Zion National Park, Utah. Ecology. 64(4): 661–667. 

Marriott, H.J.; Faber-Langendoen, D. 2000. The Black Hills community inventory, 

volume 2: Plant community descriptions. The Nature Conservancy and Association for 

Biodiversity Information, Minneapolis, MN. 326 p. 

Marrone, G. M. 2002. Field Guide to Butterflies of South Dakota. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota. 478 pp. 

McCallum, D. A. 1994. Review of Technical Knowledge: Flammulated Owl. Pages 14-

46 in Hayward G. D. and J. Verner technical editors. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great 

Gray Owls in the United States: a Technical Conservation Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RM-253. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forestand 

Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 214 pp. 

Murphy, R.K.; Grant, T.A. 2005. Land management history and floristics in mixed-grass 

prairie, North Dakota, USA. Natural Areas Journal 25: 351–358. 

National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland health: New methods to classify, inventory 

and monitor rangelands. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application], version 7.1. Arlington, VA. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed 

August 11, 2010. 

Nicholoff, S.H.; compiler. 2003. Wyoming bird conservation plan, version 2.0. Wyoming 

Partners in Flight, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY. 

http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/WY/menu.htm. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

169 

O’Reagain, P.J.; Turner, J.R. 1992. An evaluation of the empirical basis for grazing 

management recommendations for rangeland in South Africa. Journal of the Grassland 

Society of South Africa 9: 38–49. 

Orr, H.K. 1960. Soil porosity and bulk density on grazed and protected Kentucky 

bluegrass range in the Black Hills. Journal of Range Management 13: 80-86. 

Page-Dumroese, D.; Abbott, A.M., Rice, T.M. 2009. USDA Forest soil disturbance 

monitoring protocol, volume 1 - rapid assessment. FS-WO-82a. Moscow, ID: U. S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 29p. 

Panjabi, A. 2003. Monitoring birds of the Black Hills: Year 2. Final report, Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory, Fort Collins, CO. 125 p. 

Parrish, J.B.; Herman, D.J.; Reyher, D.J.; [and others]. 1996. A century of change in the 

Black Hills forest and riparian ecosystems. USDA Forest Service Agricultural 

Experiment Station, South Dakota State University. 13 p. 

Pase, C.E.; Thilenius, J.F. 1968. Composition, production, and site factors of some 

grasslands in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Research note RM 103, USDA Forest 

Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 8 p. 

Pieper, R.D. 1994. Ecological implication of livestock grazing. In: Ecological 

implications of livestock herbivore in the West. Vavra, M.; Laycock, W.A.; Pieper, R.D. 

(editors). Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. 

Platt, J.B. 1976. Sharp-shinned hawk nesting and nest site selection in Utah. Condor 78: 

102–103. 

Quimby, Chuck. 2007. A practical approach to adaptive management with a specific 

focus on livestock management NEPA based decisions. Rocky Mountain Region, USDA 

Forest Service. Unpublished report. 

Rabe, M.; Morrell, T.; Green, H.; [and others]. 1998. Characteristics of ponderosa pine 

snag roosts used by reproductive bats in Northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 62(2): 612–621. 

Reynolds, R.T.; Meslow, E.C.; Wright, H.M. 1982. Nesting habitat of coexisting 

accipiter in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 46: 124–138. 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF). 2002. Wyoming–South Dakota Black Hills 

elk range map. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Black Hills Conservation Initiative. 

Rom, Lance, Tim Church and Michele Church. 1996. Black Hills National Forest 

Cultural Resources Overview. Ms. on file at the Black Hills National Forest, 

Supervisor’s Office 

Schmidt, C.A. 2003a. Conservation assessment for the northern myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain 

Region, Black Hills National Forest. Custer, SD. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/northern_myotis.pdf

Schmidt, C.A. 2003b. Conservation assessment for the small-footed myotis in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service Rocky 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

170 

Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/small_footed_bat.pdf. 

Science Application International Corporation (SAIC). 2003. Memorandum: A 

framework for revising deer and elk strategic management direction on the Black Hills 

National Forest. SAIC project number 01-0209-04-4456-106. 

Senft, R.L.; Rittenhouse, L.R.; Woodmansee, R.G. 1985. Factors influencing patterns of 

cattle grazing behavior on shortgrass steppe. Journal of Range Management 38: 82–87. 

Sieg, C.H.; Severson, K.E. 1996. Managing habitats for white-tailed deer: Black Hills 

and Bear Lodge Mountains of South Dakota and Wyoming. General Technical Report 

RM-GTR-274, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Smith, B. E. 2003. Conservation Assessment of the Northern Leopard Frog in the Black 

Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 78 pp. 

Smith, B. E. and N. T. Stephans. 2003. A Conservation Assessment for the Redbelly 

Snake in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, South Dakota. 18 pp. 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. 2009. Stream fisheries database of 

Black Hills stream surveys. May 11, 2009. 

South Dakota Department of Natural Resources (SD DENR). 2010. The 2010 SD 

integrated report for surface water quality assessment. Steven M Pirner, secretary. Pierre, 

SD. Available online at: http://denr.sd.gov/documents/10irfinal.pdf

South Dakota Natural Heritage Program (SDNHP). 2006. Rare, threatened or endangered 

animals tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program. South Dakota Natural 

Heritage Program. http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/Diversity/RareAnimal.htm. 

Stefanich, M.R. 2001. Draft conservation assessment for the tawny crescent in the Black 

Hills National Forest of South Dakota and Wyoming. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, 

SD. March. 

Stephens, R.M.; Anderson, S.H. 2003. Conservation assessment for the broad-winged 

hawk in the Black Hills National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest 

Service Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/assessments/broad_winged_hawk.pd

f. 

Stuth, J.W. 1991. Foraging behavior. In: Heitschmidt; R.K.; Stuth, J.W.; (editors). 

Grazing management: An ecological perspective. Timber Press, Portland, OR. p. 65–83. 

Tallman, D.A.; Swanson, D.L.; Palmer, J.S. 2002. Birds of South Dakota, third edition. 

Midstates/Quality Quick Print, Aberdeen, SD. 441 p. 

Thomas, S. 2007a. Hell Canyon Ranger District, best management practices/watershed 

conservation practices summary report, 2002–2006. 

Thomas, S. 2007b. Mystic Canyon Ranger District, best management practices/watershed 

conservation practices summary report, 2002–2006. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

171 

Torstenson, W.L.F.; Mosley, J.C.; Brewer, T.K.; [and others]. 2006. Elk, mule deer, and 

cattle foraging relationships on foothill and mountain rangeland. Rangeland Ecology and 

Management 59: 80–87. 

Turner, R.W. 1974. Mammals of the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. 

University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publication 60: 1–178. 

Uchytil, Ronald J. 1993. Poa pratensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Science Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2010. Regional economic accounts. 22 Apr 2010. 

http://www.bea.gov/. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. State and county QuickFacts. 21 Apr 2010. 

http://www.census.gov/. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996a. Final environmental impact statement for the revised Black 

Hills National Forest land and resource management plan. Black Hills National Forest, 

Custer, SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996b. Rangeland analysis and management training guide. Rocky 

Mountain Region, Denver, CO. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Revised Black Hills National Forest land and resource 

management plan. Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Black Hills National Forest 2004 monitoring report. Black 

Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Final environmental impact statement for the phase II 

amendment to the 1997 revised land and resource management plan for the Black Hills 

National Forest. USDa Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. October 

2005. Available on-line at 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_011678.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. 1997 Revised land and resource management plan for the 

Black Hills National Forest, as amended by the Phase II amendment. USDA Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. Available on-line at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills/projects/planning/index.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. FY2007 monitoring and evaluation report. USDA Forest 

Service, Black Hills National Forest, Custer, SD. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Quick-Silver 6.0. (01/24/2010). 

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Forest Service Manual 2600–Wildlife, fish, and sensitive 

plant habitat management. Chapter 2670–Threatened, endangered and sensitive plants 

and animals, Region 2 Supplement No. 2600-2009-1. Denver, CO. Effective June 9, 

2009. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Climate change considerations in project level NEPA 

analysis. January. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

172 

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. The census of agriculture, 2009. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of conservation concern, 2008. Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 93 p. 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/BCC2008/BCC2008m.pdf

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered species by county list. Last updated 

November 2, 2009. South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office. [Online] 

http://southdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/endsppbycounty.htm. 

Vonhof, M.J.; Barclay, R.M. 1997. Use of tree stumps as roosts by the western longeared bat. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(3): 674–684. 

Watershed Definition. 2005. What is a watershed? http://www.co.yamhill.or.us/ybc/ 

defnWS.htm. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX A: ALLOTMENT MAPS 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

174 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

175 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

176 

 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

178 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

179 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

180 

 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

182 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

183 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

184 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX B: ALLOTMENT MONITORING PLANS Table B-1. Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project individual allotment monitoring plans 

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions3

Method (described in EA on pages 39-42)4 Frequency5 Responsibility Trigger Point for Change Acti

Rea

Bull Flats Allotment Key upland grazing area1

Less than 50 percent utilization 

Ocular utilization 

Every year; periodically throughout grazing season 

Permittee and/or USFS range staff 

50 percent utilization Rem

Key riparian grazing area2 4–6 inch stubble height on Carex and Juncus species 

along the greenline (WCP 3h) 

Stubble height Every year; 

periodically throughout grazing season 

Permittee and/or USFS range staff 

4–6 inch stubble height Rem

Benchmark: Brash Unit: C6 

Maintain ecological processes; increase western wheatgrass, sedges, and other native perennials; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index 

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff 

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: Castle Rock Unit: CF1 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass and increase other perennial grasses and sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index 

5–10 years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Castle Rock Unit: North Lightning Creek riparian site 

Maintain ecological processes; no increase in area of hummocking; maintain perennial native vegetation; bare ground less than 5% 

Photographs/ photopoints 

5–10 years USFS range 

staff

Decreasing riparian condition measured through increase in area of hummocking, ordecrease in perennial native vegetation 

Adjuinstrada

Castle Rock Unit: Ponds below Castle Spring 

Maintain high-quality amphibian breeding site that contains perennial native vegetation 

Photographs/ photopoints 

3–5 years USFS wildlife 

staff 

Decreasing riparian condition measured through declining trend in perennial native vegetation 

Impmanmovpon

Benchmark: Heinrich Unit: CF1 

Maintain ecological processes; similarity coefficient greater than 65%; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff 

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

186 

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions3

Method (described in EA on pages 39-42)4 Frequency5 Responsibility Trigger Point for Change Acti

Rea

Benchmark: Michaud Unit: C2 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass, increase other perennial grasses and shrubs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover Frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

AdjuInstada

Benchmark: King Tut Unit: C7 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass, increase other perennial grasses and shrubs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: King Tut Unit: South Lightning Creek MIM 

Maintain ecological processes; increase riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation; bare ground less than 5% 

Multiple indicator method (MIM) 

5–10 Years USFS 

interdisciplinary team 

Declining trend or less than 74% streambank stability, or declining trend or more than 26% bank alteration, or greater than 40% 

use of current year’s willows leaders, or declining trend in 

percentage of plots containing hydric plants, or declining trend 

in the percentage of plots containing riparian shrubs, ortrend toward decadent dominant riparian shrubs with lack of recruitment 

adjuinstrada

3 Sensitive Archeological Sites (565, 566, 567) 

 Heritage site 

monitoring 

 USFS heritage 

resources staff 

French Creek Allotment Key upland grazing area1

Less than 50 percent utilization 

Ocular utilization 

Every year; periodically throughout grazing season 

Permittee and/or USFS range staff 

50 percent utilization Rem

Key riparian grazing area2 4–6 inch stubble height on Carex and Juncus species 

along the greenline (WCP 3h) 

Stubble height Every year; 

periodically throughout grazing season 

Permittee and/or USFS range staff 

4–6 inch stubble height Rem

Benchmark: French Creek Unit: Upland site C1 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and undesirable forbs; increase other perennial grasses and 

Cover frequency index 

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff 

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions3

Method (described in EA on pages 39-42)4 Frequency5 Responsibility Trigger Point for Change Acti

Rea

sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

Benchmark: French Creek Unit: French Creek MIM #1 

Less than 26% bank alteration; greater than 74% stable banks; increase riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation 

Multiple indicator method (MIM) 

5–10 years USFS 

interdisciplinary team 

Declining trend or less than 74% streambank stability, or declining trend or more than 26% bank alteration, or greater than 40% use of current year’s willows leaders, or declining trend in percentage of plots containing hydric plants, or declining trend 

in the percentage of plots containing riparian shrubs, ortrend toward decadent dominant riparian shrubs with lack of recruitment 

Impman

French Creek MIM #2 

Less than 26% bank alteration; greater than 74% stable banks; increase riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation 

Multiple indicator method (MIM) 

5–10 years USFS 

interdisciplinary team 

Declining trend or less than 74% streambank stability, or declining trend or more than 26% bank alteration, or greater than 40% use of current year’s willows leaders, or declining trend in percentage of plots containing hydric plants, or declining trend 

in the percentage of plots containing riparian shrubs, ortrend toward decadent dominant riparian shrubs with lack of recruitment 

Impman

French Creek Unit: Key riparian grazing area along French Creek 

4–6 inch stubble height on Carex and Juncus species 

along the greenline (WCP 3h); less than 26% streambank alteration 

Stubble height, streambank alteration 

Every year; periodically throughout grazing season 

Permittee and/or USFS range staff 

4–6 inch stubble height Rem

Benchmark: North Pole Unit: Upland site C2 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and undesirable forbs, increase other perennial grasses and sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: Pope Springs Unit: C1 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and undesirable forbs, increase other perennial grasses and 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

188 

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions3

Method (described in EA on pages 39-42)4 Frequency5 Responsibility Trigger Point for Change Acti

Rea

sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

Pope Springs Unit: Crow Creek Pond 

Native riparian vegetation and stable banks on pond 

Photographs/ photopoints 

3–5 Years USFS wildlife 

staff 

Decreasing riparian condition measured through declining trend in native riparian vegetation 

Conownadasuch 

Pope Springs Unit: Ruby Spring Amphibian Breeding Site 

Maintain ecological processes; increase riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation; bare ground less than 5% 

Photographs/ photopoints 

3–5 Years USFS wildlife 

staff 

Decreasing riparian condition measured through declining trend in native riparian vegetation 

Adjuinstradasuch 

1 Sensitive Archeological Site (1211) 

 Heritage site 

monitoring 

 USFS heritage 

resources staff 

Lithograph Allotment Key upland grazing area1

Less than 50 percent utilization 

Ocular utilization 

Every year; periodically throughout grazing season 

Permittee and/or USFS range staff 

50 percent utilization Rem

Key riparian grazing area2 4–6 inch stubble height on Carex and Juncus species 

along the greenline (WCP 3h) 

Stubble height Every year; 

periodically throughout grazing season 

Permittee and/or USFS range staff 

4–6 inch stubble height Rem

Benchmark: North Unit: CF1 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index 

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff 

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: South Unit: CF1 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff 

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: East Unit: C3 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff 

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Lower Beaver Allotment Key upland Less than 50 percent Ocular Every year; Permittee and/or 50 percent utilization Rem
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions3

Method (described in EA on pages 39-42)4 Frequency5 Responsibility Trigger Point for Change Acti

Rea

grazing area1 utilization utilization periodically 

throughout grazing season 

USFS range staff 

Key riparian grazing area2 4–6 inch stubble height on Carex and Juncus species 

along the greenline (WCP 3h) 

Stubble height Every year; 

periodically throughout grazing season 

Permittee and/or USFS range staff 

4–6 inch stubble height Rem

Benchmark: Buck Springs Unit: C5 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease sedges and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: Lower Boles Unit: C6 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses, forbs and sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

adjuinstrada

Benchmark: Moon Unit: C8 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and timothy and increase other perennial grasses and sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: Roby Unit: C7 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease crested wheatgrass and increase other perennial grasses, forbs and sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: Summit Ridge Unit: C3 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease sedges and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: Wilson Place Unit: CF1 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

190 

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions3

Method (described in EA on pages 39-42)4 Frequency5 Responsibility Trigger Point for Change Acti

Rea

Tepee Allotment Key upland grazing area1

Less than 50 percent utilization 

Ocular utilization 

Every year; periodically throughout grazing season as funding and personnel are available 

Permittee and/or USFS range staff 

50 percent utilization Rem

Key riparian grazing area2 4–6 inch stubble height on Carex and Juncus species 

along the greenline (WCP 3h) 

Stubble height Every year; 

periodically throughout grazing season 

Permittee and/or USFS range staff 

4–6 inch stubble height Rem

Benchmark: Gillette Canyon Unit: CF4 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Western wheatgrass, blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses forbs and sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5-10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: Gillette Canyon Unit: CF1 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses forbs and shrubs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

adjuinstrada

Benchmark: Deadhorse Flats Unit: CF3 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses forbs and shrubs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: Antelope Ridge Unit: CF2 (old C5) 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Antelope Ridge Unit: Poplar Spring 

Maintain ecological processes; increase riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation; bare ground less than 5% 

Photographs/ photopoints 

3–5 years USFS range 

and/or watershed staff 

Decreasing riparian condition measured through decline in riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation 

Impmanfenclives

Antelope Ridge Unit: 

Maintain ecological processes; increase riparian 

Photographs/ photopoints 

3–5 years USFS range 

and/or 

Decreasing riparian condition measured through decline in 

Impman
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions3

Method (described in EA on pages 39-42)4 Frequency5 Responsibility Trigger Point for Change Acti

Rea

Townley Spring shrubs and hydric vegetation; 

bare ground less than 5% 

watershed staff riparian shrubs and hydric 

vegetation 

fenc

1 Sensitive Archeological Site (811) 

 Heritage site 

monitoring 

 USFS heritage 

resources staff 

Water Draw Allotment Key upland grazing area1

Less than 50 percent utilization 

Ocular utilization 

Every year; periodically throughout grazing season 

Permittee and/or USFS range staff 

50 percent utilization Rem

Key riparian grazing area2 4–6 inch stubble height on Carex and Juncus species 

along the greenline (WCP 3h) 

Stubble height Every year; 

periodically throughout grazing season 

Permittee and/or USFS range staff 

4–6 inch stubble height Rem

Benchmark: North Unit: CF1 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease needleandthread and increase other perennial grasses, sedges, shrubs and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: North Unit: C2 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses forbs, shrubs and sedges; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

North Unit: Un-named Spring below Log Trough Spring 

Maintain ecological processes; increase riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation; bare ground less than 5% 

Photographs/ photopoints 

3–5 years USFS range 

and/or watershed staff 

Decreasing riparian condition measured through decline in riparian shrubs and hydric vegetation 

Impmanfenc

Benchmark: East Unit: Inside Dunbar Exclosure PC1 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and increase other perennial grasses, sedges, shrubs and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Reference plot 

Benchmark: East Unit: Outside Dunbar Exclosure PC2 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease Kentucky bluegrass and increase other perennial 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

192 

Monitoring Site Desired Conditions3

Method (described in EA on pages 39-42)4 Frequency5 Responsibility Trigger Point for Change Acti

Rea

grasses, sedges, shrubs and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

Benchmark: East Unit: C3 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease subshrubs and increase other perennial grasses, sedges, shrubs and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

Benchmark: South Unit: C1 

Maintain ecological processes; decrease blue grama and increase other perennial grasses, sedges, shrubs and forbs; bare ground less than 5% 

Cover frequency index 

5–10 Years USFS range 

staff

Similarity coefficient less than 65%, or greater than 5% bare ground 

Adjuinstrada

2 Sensitive Archeological Sites (520 and 1098) 

 Heritage site 

monitoring 

 USFS heritage 

resources staff 

1 and 2: The location of key upland and key riparian areas change periodically based on season of use, pastures used and other factors. 3 The determination for the trend in ecological processes from existing to desired conditions is made using monitoring data and professional judgment. Th

multiple indicators such as the abiotic characteristics, vegetation conditions, and recovery mechanisms of a site. The indicators taken into consideration, a

measured and evaluated, will vary depending on the site. Methods contained within the Interagency Technical Guides and the R2 Rangeland Analysis an

Guide are approved for possible use in monitoring efforts. The Wyoming Rangeland Monitoring Guide is also approved for use by permittees. Appendix B 

each allotment. Riparian shrubs and stream bank stability represent indicators that are used in MIM. For ease of understanding, the IDT lumped several mdescription of Desired Conditions in Table 5. “Riparian shrubs” is a reflection of the combination of the following MIM indicators, “Percent saplings + youn

Dead” and “Percent Woody Use”, while “Stable stream banks” is the result of the metrics “Bank alteration” and “Percent Stable Bank”. 

4Methods described are the most likely method that would be used; however, any method, as described in more detail in the Monitoring section of Chapte

on site-specific conditions and needs. 

5: The goal for monitoring frequency is as described in this table for each site. However, monitoring is based on available staff and funding. Priority would 

riparian areas on the French Creek Allotment. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX C: SCOPING COMMENT CATEGORIZATION Table C-1. Hell Canyon Range 2010 Project public scoping summary 

Comment 

Commenter Focus Area Concern Category Disposition 

Ensure adequate funds are available to replace substandard cattleguards 

1 Funding (3) Procedural Concern 

(but relates to key issue Costs and Range Improvements)

The process for cattle guard replacement and inadministrative concern regarding USFS and Curelationships. This comment will be forwarded to 

Cattle guards will help alleviate conflicts between private landowners and livestock grazing on public land 

1 Range 

Improvements 

(3) Procedural Concern (but relates to key issue Costs and Range Improvements)

USFS agrees; with the increased development throughout the National Forest, cattleguards calivestock both on and off National Forest System 

I support grazing on the forest 1 Support (6) Statement of Support The proposed action includes continuation of livThe frigid ambersnail occurs within the project area. Keep apprised of the status of this species and develop proactive measures to conserve frigid ambersnail populations and habitat 

2 Sensitive Species (2) Non-Key Issue The frigid ambersnail is considered a species of 

considered and evaluated as part of this projectEA and the wildlife specialist report. The USFS occur within the project area, as well as additionPlan direction for conservation of species of locfollowed for this project. 

The northern leopard frog may occur within the project area. Keep apprised of the status of the species and develop proactive measures to conserve northern leopard frog populations and habitat 

2, 10 Sensitive Species (2) Non-Key Issue The northern leopard frog is considered a Regio

will be considered and evaluated as part of this through the EA, the wildlife specialist report, anThe USFS agrees that populations occur within additional suitable habitat. Forest Plan direction 

species will be followed for this project. 

Protect and conserve springs, riverine and riparian areas, wetlands, and fens 

2, 8, 10 Riparian Area 

Protection 

(1) Key Issue The USFS agrees with your concern regarding 

habitats such as riparian areas. The purpose anincludes improvement in riparian area condition

includes measures for enhanced protection of thPlan direction for protection of riparian areas withrough specific components of the proposed acspecific project design features and adaptive m

Livestock grazing on the Black Hills National Forest is a tremendous fire deterrent 

3, 4 Fire and Fuels (6) Statement of Support The Forest Service agrees that proper managem

lands can sometimes have the indirect, benefici

fuel loading and the risk of wildfire. 

We agree with any improvement to address wetland and riparian 

3 Riparian Area 

Protection 

(6) Statement of Support/ The USFS agrees with your concern regarding 

habitats such as riparian areas. The purpose an
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

194 

Comment 

Commenter Focus Area Concern Category Disposition 

area concerns and improve water distribution 

(1) Key Issue includes improvement in riparian area condition

includes measures for enhanced protection of thPlan direction for protection of riparian areas withrough specific components of the proposed acspecific project design features and adaptive m

Livestock grazing improves wildlife habitat 

4 Wildlife (6) Statement of Support The Forest Service agrees that proper managem

lands can sometimes have the indirect, beneficiconditions for some species of wildlife. 

Develop additional water sources in the Pope Springs and North Pole Units of the French Creek Allotment 

4 Range 

Improvements 

(4) Alternative The Forest Service agrees that additional water 

these units; this is part of the proposed action aalternative, described in chapter 2 of the EA. 

Use mineral placement/salt and water development to facilitate cattle distribution 

4 Management 

Techniques 

(4) Alternative The Forest Service agrees that using salt/miner

be effective ways to better distribute livestock. T

adaptive management options that are part of th

With proper management, the French Creek Allotment can carry the current permitted number of 182 cow/calf pairs (letter states 82 as current number; perhaps a typographic error?)

4 Stocking 

Levels/Capability/ Capacity 

(4) Alternative Alternatives considered for this project are desc

chapter 2 of the environmental document; alterndescribed in that section. 

Literature and reference cited and included as attachments to scoping comments 

5 ID team members as technical area specialists 

references provided. 

Ensure current permitted numbers are based on recently determined capable acres; use the Forest plan capability/suitability (Cap Suit) and bring it to each allotment 

5 Stocking 

Levels/Capability/ Capacity 

(3) Procedural Concern Grazing has occurred for many years and grazi

been adjusted based on actual use observationcalculated using available soils GIS layer with sroads or other developed structures that may im

Fair range condition should not be considered satisfactory 

5 Range Condition (3) Procedural Concern Rangeland management status will be used rat

condition. Management status reflects existing cdesired condition as opposed to a climax plant ctendency to affix generic terms to the present stManagement status is determined through simildocumented in the range specialist report. 

Desired conditions should be quantifiable 

5, 10 Data and Best 

Available Science 

(3) Procedural Concern Agreed. Methods for developing desired conditi

chapter 1 of the EA and in detail in the range sp

Use MIM and GIG for riparian monitoring; do not use proper functioning condition (PFC) 

5, 8, 10 Data and Best 

Available Science 

(3) Procedural Concern Data collected, to be used in the analysis of this 

Indicator Monitoring (MIM) for monitoring streamProper functioning condition (PFC) data, collectas an evaluation tool. PFC is used as an assess
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Comment 

Commenter Focus Area Concern Category Disposition 

designed to be a monitoring tool. MIM is the custream and riparian monitoring. The Caribou National Forest Grazing Implemenriparian process paper prepared by the Forest hmonitoring parameters and management systemin 12/28/2005. This paper includes information regarding refereriparian areas and appears to be a precursor to used on the Black Hills National Forest. 

Follow agency direction for how to implement adaptive management with clear measurable objectives, timelines, methods, etc. Ensure monitoring plans are realistic and implementable within available funds 

5, 8, 10, 11 

Adaptive Management 

(3) Procedural Concern Agreed. The Forest Service will follow all agenc

management. The EA will include an estimate oimprovements. The decision maker will considedetermining what improvements will be authoriz

Refer to GTR-209 for riparian management decisions 

5 Data and Best 

Available Science 

(3) Procedural Concern RMRS GTR 209 is a review of disease-related c

sheep and goats and bighorn sheep. This publicprovide a summary of the published scientific lit

of disease transmission between bighorn sheep goats. Due to some inaccurate findings the ageGTR-209. 

Do not downplay impacts in your NEPA analysis 

5 Analysis (3) Procedural Concern Chapter 3 of the EA will include a detailed evalu

consequences of the alternatives 

Use and gather data for use in describing current conditions and potential conditions 

5 Data and Best 

Available Science 

(3) Procedural Concern Methodology for current and desired conditions 

the EA and included the compilation of monitori

Base decisions on science and data 

5, 8, 10 Data and Best 

Available Science 

(3) Procedural Concern All available data and the best available science 

development of the alternatives and the analysiThe EA will be carefully reviewed by the decisiomade on this project. 

Ensure permits with livestock permittees include accountability 

5 Administrative (3) Procedural Concern Permits are administered in accordance with Fo

2209.13 and FSM 2230). 

Include past performance of the Forest Service, permittees and previous NEPA documents in the EA; show how current range conditions compare to conditions when current AMPs were first completed and if any habitats 

5, 11 Analysis (3) Procedural Concern Existing resource conditions are reflective of pa

management and a wide variety of other influen(affected environment) are described in chapter action was developed by comparing existing coconditions. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

196 

Comment 

Commenter Focus Area Concern Category Disposition 

have improved or declined Follow Forest Plan direction for management areas. For instance, big game winter range emphasis management area should be managed differently than resource production areas 

5, 10 Wildlife (3) Procedural Concern/ 

Non-key Issue 

Livestock management strategies including distwill be designed to be compatible with big-game meeting is being arranged with South Dakota Gdiscuss big-game habitat objectives. 

Conduct sensitive species surveys to determine current conditions 

5 Sensitive Species (2) Non-Key Issue Current sensitive species conditions are summa

and described in detail in the Botany and Wildlif

What are current conditions for sensitive snail populations? 

5 Sensitive Species (2) Non-Key Issue Sensitive snail population conditions will be sum

EA based on detailed descriptions and analysis specialist report and biological assessment. 

The EA should discuss the Fanny Boles RNA 

5 Research Natural 

Area 

(3) Procedural Concern The EA discusses the Fanny Boles RNA in cha

resource sections of chapter 3. 

The EA should discuss watershed condition classes 

5 Soils and Water (2) Non-Key Issue The EA discusses watershed condition classes 

detailed evaluation of watershed condition in the 

Specialist Report. 

The EA should discuss existing fen, spring and wetland conditions 

5 Riparian Area 

Protection 

(1) Key Issue Existing conditions are described in chapter 3 o

sensitive habitats such as springs, wetlands and 

The EA should clearly analyze all proposed range improvements, their site-specific impacts, how they relate to other past improvements and their effectiveness, show why more are needed and show costs and funding sources 

5, 10 Range 

Improvements 

(1) Key Issue The EA includes a detailed list of proposed rang

2. Existing conditions, including existing range iallotments, are summarized in chapter 3 of the analysis in the Range Specialist Report. As desadditional range improvements are needed to mconditions. 

The EA should include permitted and actual use for each allotment over the last 20 to 30 years so they can be related to current conditions 

5, 10, 11 

Data and Best Available Science 

(3) Procedural Concern The Forest Service agrees that permitted use a

the same. Existing range conditions indicate actdifference between permitted and actual use, th

Specialist Report and summarized in chapter 3 

Ensure monitoring can be implemented; if not, do not use adaptive management 

5, 10, 11 

Adaptive Management 

(3) Procedural Concern The Forest Service agrees that any monitoring t

funded and implemented. Monitoring is an integproposed action and any alternative to the propplan is included as an appendix to the EA. Whewhether or not to implement the proposed actio

a commitment to monitoring, and the details of t

is made. 

The decision should include 5 Adaptive (3) Procedural Concern Chapter 3 of the EA describes the details of all 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Comment 

Commenter Focus Area Concern Category Disposition 

actions needed now to address issues/concerns; don’t put them off 

Management determined immediately necessary by the proje

resource concerns and move toward desired cospirit of adaptive management, some proposed desired conditions and addressing a site-specifiless expensive option first with follow-up monitoexpensive option is proposed. Trigger points are 

so that if a desired result is not achieved with ththe second option will be implemented if needed adaptive management will be implemented is desubsequent monitoring and implementation plan

Ensure measures for movement of livestock, wildlife escape ramps, etc. ,are actually implemented; don’t say this will happen if it won’t 

5 Administrative (3) Procedural Concern A monitoring and implementation plan will be de

allotment management plan for each allotment, environmental analysis and subsequent decisiofeatures for wildlife escape ramps and other sucenvironmental document and the decision docuthe AMP for implementation. 

Please send a copy of the sitespecific desired conditions developed for each benchmark and key site 

5 Request Request The site-specific desired conditions developed f

area will be incorporated as part of the EA. 

The plan should include evaluation of resource data and livestock grazing in larger context of natural resource stewardship 

8 Data and Best 

Available Science 

(3) Procedural Concern All alternatives are evaluated in the context of a

need for action which focuses on improving natwhere needed. 

Consider all public values for natural resources impacted by grazing over the next 10 years 

8 Social (3) Procedural Concern Socioeconomics section of the environmental d

and benefits of this project. 

Consider livestock grazing in context with climate change and how this will likely affect vegetation and carrying capacity 

8, 10, 11 

Climate Change/ Environmental Variability 

(2) Non-Key Issue Climate change is discussed in chapter 3 of the 

Adaptive management options table is inadequate to address issues over 10 years and it includes options that have never been used (range riding) 

8 Adaptive 

Management 

(3) Procedural Concern The adaptive management options table has be

scoping period to ensure all actions included in implementable. 

Range riding should be considered to address livestock distribution issues instead of expensive pipelines 

8, 10 Cost and Range 

Improvements/ Management Techniques 

(1) Key Issue Alternatives considered for this project are desc

chapter 2 of the environmental document; range section; range riding is also a proposed action fAllotment under alternative 3. 

Please provide current forage capacity information in the EIS 

8 Stocking 

Levels/Capability/ 

(3) Procedural Concern Existing forage capacity is discussed in chapter 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

198 

Comment 

Commenter Focus Area Concern Category Disposition 

and tie livestock grazing to available forage capacity 

Capacity detail in the Range Specialist Report. 

Recognize that changes in forage capacity have resulted from tree canopy changes over time. This should be included in setting stocking rates. 

8 Stocking 

Levels/Capability/ Capacity 

(3) Procedural Concern Existing forage capacity is discussed in chapter 

detail in the Range Specialist Report. 

Consider use of the Robel Pole herbage-left-ungrazed protocol (calibrated for the Black Hills by Uresk) as the primary method for setting stocking rates 

8, 10, 11 

Data and Best Available Science 

(3) Procedural Concern There are several methods that may be used (in

inventory and monitoring of rangelands. The mobe found in the USDA Forest Service, Rocky MAnalysis and Management Training Guide. 

The plan should provide a framework for flexible future options, anticipating uncertain natural resource needs with climate change. Options should include grass banking 

8, 10 Climate Change/ 

Environmental Variability 

(2) Non-Key Issue Alternatives considered for this project are desc

chapter 2 of the environmental document; alternswing pastures, and other methods for addressuncertainty is described in that section. 

Wetland/riparian quality and water quality should not be sacrificed for livestock grazing 

8 Riparian Area 

Protection 

 (1) Key Issue Agreed. Forest Plan standards and guidelines w

improve riparian areas and maintain or improve 

Consider closing an allotment if the cost and feasibility of implementing wetlands/riparian area protections is too high 

8 Riparian Area 

Protection 

(1) Key Issue Alternatives considered for this project are desc

chapter 2 of the environmental document; closindescribed in that section. 

Do not develop any more springs; there are so few undeveloped springs in the southern Black Hills that developing any new ones is inappropriate 

8 Riparian Area 

Protection 

(1) Key Issue Alternatives considered for this project are desc

chapter 2 of the environmental document; alterndevelopments is described in that section. 

Restrict the fen in French Creek from livestock access; the only appropriate level of livestock use in fens is none; all fens located within any allotment should be protected 

8 Riparian Area 

Protection 

(1) Key Issue This is part of the proposed action. 

Consider a strategic, landscape scale approach to livestock management instead of separate allotment-by-allotment management; this does not allow for proactive changes if a major 

8 Climate Change/ 

Environmental Variability 

(2) Non-Key Issue Alternatives considered for this project are desc

chapter 2 of the environmental document; alternallotments is discussed in that section. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Comment 

Commenter Focus Area Concern Category Disposition 

environmental problem arises The analysis should include a social analysis of other segments of the public (clean water, functioning ecosystems, recreation) and not just livestock permittees 

8 Social/Economics (1) Key Issue An economic evaluation will be used as one par

document, considered in combination with othemeeting the purpose and need for action. 

The French Creek Allotment, for instance, has a large human population on private land. At some point, effective livestock management will not be possible 

8 Social (4) Alternative Minimizing conflicts with private landowners and 

administration is an objective for this project (seenvironmental document). Alternatives considerdescribed in detail at the end of chapter 2 of the alternatives for not grazing the French Creek Al

section. 

The plan must disclose, with applicable science, how livestock will be managed to meet the Forest Plan requirements for riparian and wetland protection and water quality (Forest Plan Objective 213); if individual projects do not contribute, the objective will never be met 

8 Data and Best 

Available Science 

(3) Procedural Concern/Non-Key Issue 

All Forest Plan standards and guidelines were rthe purpose and need for action. The intent of thalternatives is to ensure consistency with the FoForest Plan guidelines that pertain to this projecof the EA, appendices to the EA, and in detail in reports. 

The plan should include quantitative riparian condition data with identified, acceptable, measurable, science-based triggers 

8, 11 Riparian Area 

Protections 

(1) Key Issue Existing riparian conditions are summarized in c

detailed in various resource specialist reports fothe monitoring plan is described in the EA. Usinestablish baselines and provide quantitative restrends and which way they are moving. 

The plan should examine all suitable willow habitat, manage for willow habitat and meet Forest Plan Objective 214; if individual projects do not contribute, the objective will never be met 

8 Riparian Area 

Protections 

(1) Key Issue All Forest Plan standards and guidelines were r

the purpose and need for action. The intent of thalternatives is to ensure consistency with the FoForest Plan guidelines that pertain to this projecof the EA, appendices to the EA, and in detail in reports. The proposed action includes riparian pcontribute to this objective as well. 

The plan should address how to contribute to Forest Plan Objective 215; if individual projects do not contribute, the objective will never be met 

8, 10 Riparian Area 

Protections 

(1) Key Issue All Forest Plan standards and guidelines were r

the purpose and need for action. The intent of thalternatives is to ensure consistency with the FoForest Plan guidelines that pertain to this projecof the EA, appendices to the EA, and in detail in reports. This project has limited applicability to Forest Pthere are few stream reaches in which the wate
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

200 

Comment 

Commenter Focus Area Concern Category Disposition 

wet meadows restored. Some sections of Frenccriteria; how alternatives achieve Forest Plan obindividual specialist reports that are summarized environmental document. 

The plan should describe inventory results for Black Hills montane grassland communities and if it exists, describe management that will protect and enhance stands with a monitoring plan. this should contribute to Forest Plan Objective 205 

8, 10 Sensitive Species 

and Habitats–Montane Grassland 

(2) Non-Key Issue A portion of the Black Hills Montane Grassland 

Canyon” by Marriott (Marriott 2000) is located wAllotment. This site has been surveyed in depth ranking of C. This site was not considered by Mquality to qualify as a conservation target. Therstudy (cover-frequency) installed in this site whito the monitoring plan. 

We request that the botany and wildlife biological evaluations be included as an appendix to the DEIS so that we can review them 

8, 10 Sensitive Species (3) Procedural 

Concern/Request 

There are no requirements to include the botanevaluations and biological assessments as an aappendix of this size would substantially increasthis document. The BE and BA would be availaare complete. 

The plan should discuss how livestock will be restricted to protect Region 2 sensitive plants and Species of Local Concern, or the monitoring plan that will be used with specific triggers and mitigations if plant populations are degraded 

8 Sensitive Species (2 ) Non-Key Issue The EA discusses necessary protection measur

chapter 2 and chapter 3 of the EA. 

Do not allow livestock grazing in the Fanny Boles RNA (Management Area 2.2) until a management plan for the RNA is completed. The plant communities described in the 2000 Black Hills Community Inventory, Volume 2 present in the Fanny Boles RNA (Management Area 2.2) did not evolve with domestic livestock grazing or bison grazing 

8 Research Natural 

Area 

(4) Alternative Alternatives considered for this project are desc

chapter 2 of the environmental document; an algrazing in the Fanny Boles RNA is described in 

Add water developments to the French Creek Allotment; when water is not available livestock push upon adjacent private lands 

9 Range 

Improvements 

(4) Alternative Alternatives considered for this project are desc

chapter 2 of the environmental document; additdescribed in that section. 

The DEIS should include detailed maps with proposed improvements, wetland/riparian 

10 NEPA Request Much of this detail is included either in the envir

deemed necessary for a full understanding on t
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Comment 

Commenter Focus Area Concern Category Disposition 

locations, sensitive species habitats, MA direction, proposed roads, current and proposed monitoring locations 

effects, or in the project record. 

The DEIS should include explanations of how desired conditions are calculated and why 65 to 87% desired conditions are okay; why not 85 to 100%? 

10 Desired Conditions (3) Procedural A description of how upland desired conditions 

are calculated is included in the Range Specialicompositions are not necessarily climax conditioare attained then the site can be re-evaluated aadjusted. The desired conditions of vegetation and the phacres having capability to support livestock grazat least 65% similar to those that could occur nastages of development on a particular site. (A dsimilarity coefficients appear in the Forest Serviand Management Training Guide” [1996]). 

The DEIS should disclose effects of timing, intensity, duration and frequency of livestock grazing for adaptive management 

10 Adaptive 

Management 

(3) Procedural The environmental document includes a detaile

effects of livestock grazing on all relevant resou

Reduce stocking levels to improve range and riparian areas; adjusting grazing systems is not enough 

10 Riparian Area 

Protections/Stocking Levels 

(1) Key Issue Alternatives considered for this project are desc

chapter 2 of the environmental document; consstocking levels is described in that section. 

I recommend riparian health be an issue addressed in the DEIS; the southern hills has so few that protection is even more important 

10 Riparian Area 

Protections 

(1) Key Issue Agreed. Riparian health has been identified as a 

Establish and disclose monitoring plan that will show how livestock as a tool will improve depleted areas 

10 Monitoring (3) Procedural A detailed monitoring plan is included in an app

document. 

Use an IDT approach to selecting proper placement of range improvements in order to avoid disturbance to sensitive species and habitats 

10 Sensitive Species (2) Non-Key Issue An interdisciplinary team is part of this planning 

effects to all resources are carefully considered detailed ID team evaluation of site-specific placalso routine practice and includes cultural resouplant consideration prior to placement. 

Establish a timeline for implementation of protective measures and prioritize 

10, 11 Monitoring (3) Procedural A detailed monitoring plan is included as part of 

appendices to the environmental document. An been prepared for internal use and is avaiable i

Consider cross fencing, creation of temporary pastures, or short 

10 Grazing Systems (4) Alternative Alternatives considered for this project are desc

chapter 2 of the environmental document; altern
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

202 

Comment 

Commenter Focus Area Concern Category Disposition 

duration grazing or other appropriate methods to get livestock to better utilize nondesirable cool season grasses and enhance establishment of warm season grasses, desirable native forbs and woody species and hardwoods 

swing pastures and other methods for addressinuncertainty is described in that section. In addition, not all cool-season grasses are nonwith warm seasons. It depends on desired cond

alone will not elicit a change in the current, stab

The range of alternatives should address contingencies for drought, prescribed fire, wildfire and provide opportunities for rest. Such as swing pastures and grass banks 

10 Climate Change (2) Non-Key Issue Alternatives considered for this project are desc

chapter 2 of the environmental document; alternswing pastures and other methods for addressinuncertainty is described in that section. 

The DEIS should include postJasper and Shack Fires monitoring results 

10 NEPA Procedural Existing conditions in areas that were burned in 

chapter 3 of the environmental document and is monitoring. 

Ensure DEIS includes long-term monitoring plan and mitigation measures; monitoring needs measurable objectives, schedule for completion of objectives with monitoring intervals and standards 

10,11 Monitoring Procedural A detailed monitoring plan is included in the env

Livestock grazing affects structure of high grasslands. The BAE should address how loss of high grassland structure affects small mammals and upland birds 

10 Wildlife Procedural Effects to mammals and birds will be addressed 

Specialist Report. Sensitive species, species of birds, Partners in Flight species, and managembe analyzed. 

Livestock grazing can result in pine and juniper encroachment into grasslands 

10 Wildlife (2) Non-key issue Effects of grazing on vegetation, including pine 

the EA. 

Livestock grazing can result in excessive browsing in canyon lands and woody draws and this reduces diverse wildlife habitats 

10 Wildlife (2) Non-key issue Agreed. Effects will be analyzed in the Wildlife S

project is an effort to contribute to objectives anstandards and guidelines. Using an adaptive main enhancing wildlife habitats over time. 

Consider an interagency, cooperative approach to this project with private land owners and other agencies 

10 (3) Suggestion/Procedural The Forest Service understands the value in co

projects and plans such as these. We continue landowners, and other agencies in developmen

We think this action warrants an EIS due to size and scope 

11 NEPA (3) Procedural Based on preliminary effects analysis and the s

proposed action, the Forest Service does not agwarrants preparation of an EIS. However, durin
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

Comment 

Commenter Focus Area Concern Category Disposition 

any analysis indicates the potential for significanunusual or extraordinary circumstances, an EIS time. 

Grazing should be adjusted to take into account that an animal unit month (AUM) is one cow weighing 1,000 lbs, when in fact it is common to have cows weighing 1,300 lbs or more with larger calves as well; stocking rates have not been adjusted to take this into account; if this is not done, monitoring is essential to ensure appropriate forage is retained 

11 Grazing 

Strategies/Monitoring 

(3) Suggestion/Procedural An animal unit month (AUM) is one animal unit 

considered to be one mature (1,000 lb) cow or taverage daily forage consumption of 26 pounds 1,300 lb cow would be 1.3 AU. The Forest Servessential to ensure appropriate forage, and will rates based on monitoring results. 

Consider the recent United States District Court of California ruling in Citizens for Better Forestry, et al. vs. US Department of Agriculture, et al. It applies to this project 

11 NEPA (3) Procedural This ruling concerns primarily the National Fore

Forest Planning Rule of 2000 and 2008 and is nsite-specific project. The Hell Canyon Range 20conducted under NEPA and will fully comply witregulations. 

Please provide two hard copies of the DEIS to review 

11 NEPA Request When the environmental document is ready for 

the Forest Service will provide two hard copies 

Please consider the literature and other documents we provided 

5 Best Available 

Science 

Request A thorough review of literature citations and oth

your comments on this project were reviewed adocumented in the project record. 

Key to those that commented: 1 – Custer County Highway Department 2 – US Fish and Wildlife Service 3 – Custer County Commissioners 4 – livestock permittee 5 – Western Watersheds Project 6 – livestock permittee 7 – private citizen 8- Norbeck Society 

9-private citizen 10- South Dakota Department of Game, Fish 11 – Sierra Club

Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

205 

APPENDIX D: APPLICABLE FOREST PLAN 

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES AND 

WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES 

The proposed action and alternatives are guided by the Black Hills National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended (USDA Forest Service 1997). 

The Forest Plan contains Forest-wide goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines 

related to livestock grazing. Furthermore, the Forest is subdivided into land allocations 

(management areas) with established desired conditions and associated management 

direction (standards and guidelines) which may apply to livestock grazing. The following 

is a summary of the direction that applies to this project area with respect to this proposal. 

All of this direction has been incorporated into the project assessment, design criteria, the 

proposed action, and alternatives. 

Forest Plan Goals 

Goal 1: Protect basic soil, air, water, and cave resources. 

Objective 102. Use a qualitative survey which emphasizes riparian condition, such as 

proper functioning condition methodology, to refine preliminary watershed health 

assessments within the next planning period. 

Objective 103. Maintain or improve long-term stream health. Achieve and maintain the 

integrity of aquatic ecosystems to provide stream-channel stability and aquatic habitats 

for water quality in accordance with State standards. 

Objective 104. Maintain or enhance watershed conditions to foster favorable soil 

relationships and water quality. 

b. Achieve and maintain stable stream beds and banks, diverse riparian vegetation, 

and effective ground cover that controls runoff and erosion. 

(Riparian areas will support diverse plant species. The streams, wetlands, riparian 

areas of the Forest reflect healthy, functioning ecosystems.) 

Goal 2: Provide for a variety of life through management of biologically diverse 

ecosystems. 

Objective 213. Maintain or enhance existing riparian area biodiversity, physical structure 

and size. 

Objective 217. Maintain habitat for game and fish populations at the state objectives in 

effect in 1996. 

Objective 220. Conserve or enhance habitat for federally listed threatened, endangered 

and proposed species. 

Objective 221. Conserve or enhance habitat for R2 sensitive and species of local concern 

(SOLC). 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

206 

Objective 238. (New). The following are objectives for management indicator species. 

MIS will generally be monitored using trends in habitat; however, when available, 

population trends may be used as a strong indicator of management response. Population 

monitoring will be discretionary as provided by 219.14.f. 

 Maintain or enhance habitat for ruffed grouse, beaver, song sparrow, grasshopper 

sparrow, white-tailed deer and brown creeper; as outlined in specific direction 

pertaining to aspen, other hardwoods, riparian areas, grasslands, spruce and 

ponderosa pine (e.g., Objectives 201, 205, 211, 200-01, 5.1-204). 

 Maintain habitat opportunities for black-backed woodpeckers across the Forest, as 

outlined in specific direction pertaining to conifer habitat, snags and recently 

burned habitat (e.g., Objectives 211, 11-03, 5.1-204, Standard 2301). 

 Maintain habitat for golden-crowned kinglets, as outlined in specific direction 

pertaining to spruce habitat (e.g., Objective 200-01). 

 Maintain or enhance habitat quality and connectivity for mountain suckers, as 

outlined in specific direction pertaining to aquatic resources (e.g., Objectives 103, 

104, 215, Standards 1201, 1203, 1205, Guideline 1115). 

Objective 240. Manage and/or install structures to provide water for livestock and to 

protect the aquatic, shoreline and upland vegetation around ponds or water catchments 

containing leopard frogs. 

Goal 3: Provide for sustained commodity uses in an environmentally acceptable manner. 

Objective 301. Produce on a sustained basis and make available up to 233 million pounds 

of forage for livestock and wildlife use each year (weather permitting). The location and 

amount of forage produced under the forest canopy will vary with the density of the 

overstory. This may necessitate changes in where and how both livestock and wildlife 

grazing takes place on a local basis over the rotation of a stand of timber. 

 Livestock use will be up to 127 million pounds of forage per year or 

approximately 128,000 AUMs. 

 Wildlife use will be up to 106 million pounds of forage per year or approximate 

population levels of 70,000 deer and 4,500 elk or other combinations that use the 

same amount of forage. 

Objective 302: Maintain rangelands in satisfactory range condition. (Commodities 

including livestock grazing contribute to the economies of local and regional 

communities. Ecosystem management can be more cost effective when commercial 

benefits can result. Livestock grazing will occur without impairing the health of 

ecosystems and in a manner compatible with other Forest uses.) 

Goal 4: Provide for scenic quality, a range of recreational opportunities, and protection of 

heritage resources in response to the needs of the Black Hills National Forest visitors 

and local communities. 

Objective 405: Manage all heritage sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places 

in consultation with the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHIPO) and the President’s 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

207 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). (Heritage resources will be protected 

and interpreted.) 

Goal 7: Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations and other agencies while 

coordinating planning and project implementation. 

Objective 701: Continue to cooperate with interested parties and organizations in the 

development of plans and projects. 

Objective 704: Consult with tribal governments, traditional practitioners, and other 

knowledgeable individuals to identify important areas of American Indian religious 

significance. 

Goal 8: Promote rural development opportunities. 

Objective 804: Coordinate with local communities to recognize local goals to maintain 

desired lifestyles and social values to participate with and provide appropriate assistance 

to development groups, and to be a reliable partner in giving sufficient advance notice 

about potential changes that may affect local economies. 

(Management of human, natural, technical, and financial resources to improve living 

conditions, provide employment opportunities, enrich the cultural life, and enhance the 

environment of rural America.) 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 

Soil 

Direction on Soil Quality Standards is provided in Rocky Mountain Region Supplement 

(FSH 509.18) and is incorporated by reference into the Forest Plan. 

1101. When doing projects, analyze the cumulative effects of disturbances on long-term 

soil productivity. 

1102. Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands. 

1103. Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned and detrimentally 

compacted, eroded, and displaced land to no more than 15 percent of any land unit. 

“Land treatments” are human actions that disturb vegetation, ground cover or soil. “Land 

unit” is a mapped land type polygon or a mapped soil unit. (WCP Handbook Standard 13) 

Additional information: Region 2 Supplement No. 2509.25-2006-3 (USDA Forest 

Service 2006) to the Forest Service Soil Management Handbook provides additional 

information for meeting this standard. This document specifies that no more than 15 

percent of an activity area will be left in a detrimentally compacted, displaced, puddled, 

severely burned, and/or eroded condition—not including the permanent transportation 

system. 

1109: Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when the use ends, as needed, to prevent 

resource damage. 

1112. Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each land unit 

to prevent harmful increased runoff. (WCP Handbook Standard 2) 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

208 

Design Criteria (a) Maintain the organic ground cover of each land unit so that pedestals, 

rills, and surface runoff from the land unit are not increased. 

1116. Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream 

health from damage by increased runoff. (WCP Handbook Standard 1) 

Water 

Direction on Water Quality Standards is provided in Rocky Mountain Region Watershed 

Conservation Practices (WCP) Handbook (FSH 2509.25) and is incorporated by 

reference into the Forest Plan. This handbook includes design criteria associated with 

each standard listed below; management measures are repeated in the following section 

titled Watershed Conservation Practices. 

1201: Conduct actions so that stream pattern, geometry, and habitats are maintained or 

improved toward robust stream health. 

1206: When stabilizing damaged stream banks, preferentially use methods that 

emphasize vegetative stabilization. Use native vegetation for streambank stabilization 

whenever possible. 

1208: Design water developments to minimize damage to channel capacity, aquatic 

habitat, and riparian vegetation. 

1210: Maintain enough water in perennial streams to sustain existing health. 

1211: Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where such pollutants 

will not reach surface or ground water. 

1214: Where natural background water pollutants cause degradation, it is not necessary to 

implement improvement actions. Short-term or temporary failure to meet some 

parameters of the applicable Federal or State standard, such as increased sediment form 

road crossing construction or water resource development, may be permitted in special 

cases. 

Riparian Areas, Water Influence Zones and Wetlands 

1301. In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and 

wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and 

riparian ecosystem condition. (Regional WCP Handbook Standard 3) 

1302. Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns 

in wetlands to sustain their ecological function, per 404 regulations. (Regional WCP 

Handbook Standard 6) 

1304. As opportunities arise, and need dictates, relocate or implement mitigation 

measures for roads, trails, watering tanks, ponds, water catchments, and similar facilities 

currently located within the Water Influence Zone. 

Forested Landscapes–Hardwoods and Shrubs 

2207. Locate new livestock/wildlife water sites (i.e., drinking structures) outside of 

hardwood communities, except when no other option is available. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

209 

Range–General 

2502. Convert season-long grazing systems to systems which require more intensive 

management, such as multiple-pasture deferred- or rest-rotation systems, as opportunities 

permit. 

2504. The site-specific rangeland analysis necessary for preparation of allotment 

management plans shall document selected desired conditions and evaluate whether the 

designated area is at, moving towards, or moving away from, the desired conditions. 

 Satisfactory range conditions occur when the existing conditions are at, or 

progressing towards the desired conditions identified through the project planning 

process. 

 When trends towards satisfactory range conditions are not achieved within 5 years 

by changes in grazing systems, allowable use or residual guidelines, more 

restrictive use or residual guidelines, or changes to the grazing systems shall be 

adopted. 

Range–Proper Use or Residual Levels–Riparian/Uplands 

2505. Livestock and wild herbivore allowable forage use or residual levels on rangelands 

by grazing system and range condition are: 

Proper allowable use guidelines (percent utilization by weight each year) 

Season of Use Satisfactory Condition (%) Unsatisfactory Condition (%)

Continuous Use Spring/Summer 0-45 0-40 

Continuous Use Fall/Winter 55-60 0-55 

Deferred Rotation 0-50 0-45 

Rest Rotation 0-55 0-50 

Residual Levels for Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Residual levels (or remaining height of key plant species) can be prescribed for riparian 

areas in the AMP or the annual letter of operating instructions (AOI) to the livestock 

permittee. Residual levels will be based upon specific objectives for the location in 

question and take into account season of use and range conditions. 

Allowable use and/or residual levels: 

 Utilization of willow, shrubs, woody vines or young deciduous trees (such as 

aspen, birch, and oak) in any year by livestock or wildlife is limited to browsing 

only 40 percent of the total individual leaders produced in that year (not to be 

confused with 40 percent use on each and every leader produced). 

 Remove livestock from the grazing unit or allotment when further utilization on 

key areas in that year will exceed proper allowable use or prescribed residual 

level in the Forest Plan, AMP, or AOI for either grass and forbs or shrubs. 

 No authorized utilization will be allowed on known occurrences of willow 

emphasis species (e.g., Salix candida, Salix serissima, Salix lucida). 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

210 

 Implement additional measures to assure avoidance of livestock use on Carex 

alopecoidea. Restrict livestock use of all or portions of the five largest 

geographically spaced occurrences at site numbers CAAL8-19, CAAL8-20, 

CAAL8-22, CAAL8-30, CAAL8-31. 

2506. Develop site-specific vegetation utilization or residual guidelines during rangeland 

planning, and document them in AMPs. In the absence of updated planning, the 

utilization guidelines as shown or residual guidelines documented in the AOI will apply. 

2507. Allow use of forage by livestock and wildlife in fenced riparian pastures so long as 

it meets the objectives of maintaining, enhancing or conserving the riparian ecosystem 

and emphasis species persistence. 

Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive Specie –Protection and Management 

Sensitive Species 

3103. Manage known sensitive species and species of local concern (SOLC) snail 

colonies to: 

 Retain overstory sufficient to maintain moisture regimes, ground level 

temperatures and humidity. 

 Retain ground litter, especially deciduous litter. 

 Avoid burning, heavy grazing, off-highway vehicles (OHVs), heavy equipment 

and other activities that may compact soils or alter vegetation composition and 

ground cover. 

3104. Protect habitat for sensitive plants and animals associated with moist soil 

conditions. Do not develop springs or seeps as water facilities where sensitive species 

exist. 

3106. Riparian areas or wetlands where populations of sensitive species are located are to 

be avoided during ground disturbing activities. Use one or more of the following (or 

other mitigation measures) tied to the site-specific conditions for disturbances adjacent to 

known occurrences: Avoid removing riparian or wetland vegetation; filling or dredging 

the riparian area or wetland; diverting stream flow from the current channel; prevent 

storm runoff from washing silt into the stream or wetland; reseed and/or replant cut and 

fill slopes with native seed and/or native plants promptly to control erosion and for 

prevention of noxious-weed infestations. Use appropriate measures to control erosion on 

disturbed areas that are steep, are highly erosive, and/or adjacent to the riparian area. 

Timing, placement, and installation of temporary stream diversions shall allow passage of 

aquatic life and protect sensitive and species of local concern. 

3111. From April 1 through August 15, minimize additional human-caused noise and 

disruption beyond that occurring at the time of nest initiation (e.g., road traffic, timber 

harvests, construction activities) within one-half mile of all active goshawk nests up until 

the nest has failed or fledglings have dispersed. 

3115. A R2 sensitive species or species of local concern located after contract or permit 

issuance will be appropriately managed by active coordination between permittee, 

contractor or purchaser, Forest Service line officer, project administrator, and biologist 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

211 

and/or botanist. Solutions need to be based on the circumstances of each new discovery 

and must consider the species need, contractual obligations and costs, and mitigation 

measures available at the time of discovery. 

3116. Avoid creating barriers (e.g., new open roads) between red-bellied snake 

hibernacula and wetlands. 

General Wildlife and Fish Direction 

3202. Structures, such as fences and roads will be designed and built so that they do not 

create unnecessary or unreasonable barriers or hazards for wildlife and people. 

3210. Provide riparian habitat by maintaining or establishing riparian shrub and tree 

species, and protect riparian habitat from animal damage if needed. 

3211. Provide riparian habitat diversity through vegetation treatments or in conjunction 

with other resource activities designed to maintain or improve wildlife or fisheries habitat 

and stream stability. 

3212. Manage for high quality riparian communities. 

 Provide stable stream banks. 

 Retain woody vegetation along streams and lakes to provide shading for aquatic 

life and habitat for terrestrial species. 

 Provide large woody material for aquatic life. 

Fire and Fuels 

4107. Defer prescribed burned areas from livestock grazing for a portion or all of the 

following growing season to ensure regrowth of forage species. 

Noxious Weeds 

4301. For all proposed projects or activities, determine the risk of noxious weed 

introduction or spread, and implement appropriate mitigation measure. 

4302. Use biological control methods whenever practical, and whenever protecting other 

resources is desired, such as water quality. 

4306. Use certified noxious weed-free seed, feed and mulch. 

Heritage resources 

6101. Consider long-term Forest management needs in determining appropriate use of 

mitigation of effects to, or avoidance of, heritage resources during project planning. 

Indian Uses 

1702. Tribes will be notified of culturally significant artifacts or burial sites are found 

during project implementation. 

7102. Recognize American Indian religious and spiritual beliefs regarding the disposition 

of human remains and make provisions for their proper reburial and treatment according 

to applicable FSM. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

212 

Forest Plan Management Area Direction 

Management Area 2.2–Research Natural Areas 

Research natural areas (RNAs) are selected to preserve a spectrum of relatively pristine 

areas that represent a wide range of natural variability within important natural 

ecosystems and environments (coniferous forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, aquatic, 

and geological environments) and areas that have special or unique characteristics of 

scientific importance. 

1001. Conserve the natural condition of the ecosystem, its processes, and any species or 

values for which the research natural area was established. 

1002. Allow uses that maintain or improve the ecological characteristics for which the 

RNA was designated. If monitoring reveals that a use begins to affect the ecological 

characteristic, the use will be removed from the RNA. 

2501. Do not increase permitted livestock animal unit months or developments pending 

the RNA management plan in RNAs. Grazing suitability and desired vegetative 

conditions will be determined by the RNA management plan. 

Management Area 3.7–Late Successional Forest Landscape 

These areas are managed to emphasize late successional forest structure. 

201. Manage each contiguous unit within this management area as a late-successional 

landscape, so that late-successional structure is always present within some portion of 

each unit. 

2101. Applicable management activities should replicate biological processes found in 

the areas and strive to replicate natural vegetative patterns and patch size. 

Management Area 5.1–Resource Production Emphasis 

These areas are managed for wood products, water yield and forage production, while 

providing other commercial products, visual quality, diversity of wildlife and a variety of 

other goods and services. Numerous open roads provide commercial access and roaded 

recreation opportunities, while closed roads provide non-motorized recreation 

opportunities. Livestock grazing is designated as a suitable use. (DFC - Trees are 

managed to produce forest products while providing forage production. The forest is 

largely a mosaic of tree groups of different ages and heights. There are some natural 

openings or meadows of various sizes and shapes, and these areas are enlarged as 

appropriate.) 

Management Area 5.4–Big Game Winter Range Emphasis 

These areas are managed to provide high-quality winter and transitional habitat for deer 

and elk, high-quality turkey habitat, habitat for other species, and a variety of multiple 

uses. Livestock grazing is designated as a suitable use. (DFC: The area is managed to 

provide big game winter range while maintaining healthy plant communities with a 

variety of species for food and cover. Livestock grazing is managed to be compatible 

with big-game habitat objectives.) 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

213 

204. Improve forage on range areas. 

2501. Design livestock management strategies including distribution and stocking rates to 

be compatible with big-game habitat objective. 

2502. Feature big-game use of forage increases that result from the vegetative 

improvements, while also allowing for livestock increases. Follow Forest-wide proper 

allowable use guidelines or residual levels documented in AMPs or AOIs for combined 

use by wildlife and livestock. 

Watershed Conservation Practices 

In addition to design criteria specific to this project (see chapter 2) and Forest Plan 

direction, as summarized above, Region 2 Watershed Conservation Practices (USDA 

Forest Service 2006) would also be implemented as part of this project and are nondiscretionary. The watershed conservation practices most applicable to this project and 

that are related to livestock grazing are listed below. These practices were reviewed 

during project development and in the creation of the monitoring plan. 

Management Measure 1: Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to 

protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff (Forest Plan S&G 

1116) 

 In each watershed containing a 3rd-order and larger stream, limit connected 

disturbed areas so the total stream network is not expanded by more than 10%. 

Progress toward zero connected disturbed area as much as practicable. In 

watersheds that contain stream reaches in Diminished stream health class, allow 

only those actions that will maintain or reduce watershed-scale Connected 

Disturbed Area. 

Management Measure 2: Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground 

cover in each activity area to prevent harmful increased runoff (Forest Plan S&G 1112) 

 Maintain the organic ground cover of each activity area so that pedestals, rills, 

and surface runoff from the activity area are not increased. The amount of 

organic ground cover needed will vary by different ecological types and should be 

commensurate with the potential of the site. 

Management Measure 3: In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent 

streams, lakes, and wetlands allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term 

stream health and riparian ecosystem condition. The water influence zone (WIZ) 

includes the geomorphic floodplain (valley bottom), riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge. 

Its minimum horizontal width (from top of each bank) is the greater of 100 feet or the 

mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation. The WIZ protects interacting 

aquatic, riparian, and upland functions by maintaining natural processes and resilience of 

soil, water, and vegetation systems (Forest Plan S&G 1301) 

 (A) Allow no action that will cause long-term change to a lower stream health 

class in any stream reach. In degraded systems, progress to robust stream health 

within the next plan period. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

214 

 (B) Allow no action that will cause long-term change away from desired 

condition in any riparian or wetland vegetation community. Consider 

management of stream temperature and large woody debris recruitment when 

determining desired vegetation community. In degraded systems, progress 

toward desired condition within the next plan period. 

 (E) Locate new concentrated-use sites outside the WIZ if practicable and outside 

riparian areas and wetlands. Armor or reclaim existing sites in the WIZ to 

prevent detrimental soil and bank erosion. 

 (F) Manage livestock use through control of time/timing, intensity, and 

duration/frequency of use in riparian areas and wetlands to maintain or improve 

long-term stream health. Exclude livestock from riparian areas and wetlands that 

are meeting or moving towards desired condition objectives where monitoring 

information shows continued livestock grazing would prevent attainment of those 

objectives. 

 (G) Keep stock tanks, salt supplements, and similar features out of the WIZ if 

practicable and out of riparian areas and wetlands always. Keep stock driveways 

out of the WIZ except to cross at designated points. Armor water gaps and 

designated stock crossings where needed and practicable. 

 (H) Manage dry meadow and upland plant communities, including Kentucky 

bluegrass types that have invaded into wetland/riparian areas in a manner that will 

contribute to their replacement over time by more mesic native plant communities 

to the extent practicable. Develop site-specific riparian stubble height standards 

or use the following default levels for carex and juncus species: 3-4 inches in 

spring-use pastures and 4-6 inches in summer or autumn use pastures; to leave 

adequate residual stubble height to retain effective ground cover. 

 (I) Do not allow livestock grazing through an entire growing season in pastures 

that contain in riparian areas and wetlands. Apply short-duration grazing as 

practicable (generally less than 20 days) to minimize re-grazing of individual 

plants, to provide greater opportunity for regrowth and to manage utilization of 

woody species and reduce soil compaction. During the hot season (mid-to-late 

summer) manage livestock herds to avoid concentrating in riparian areas and 

wetlands. 

 (J) Design grazing systems to limit utilization of woody species. Where woody 

species have been historically suppressed, or where the plant community is below 

its desired condition and livestock are a key contributing factor, manage livestock 

through control of time/timing, intensity, and duration/frequency of use so as to 

allow for riparian hardwood growth extension and reproduction. Manage woody 

species in riparian areas to provide for stream temperature, bank stability, and 

riparian habitat. 

 (K) Maintain the extent of stable banks in each stream react at 74% or more of 

reference conditions. Consider degree of livestock trampling and riparian 

vegetation utilization on or immediately adjacent to stream banks when timing 

livestock moves between units. 

 (L) Adjust management in riparian areas and wetlands to improve detrimental soil 

compaction whenever it occurs. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

215 

 (M) Do not excavate earth material from, or store excavated earth material in, any 

stream, swale, lake, wetland, or WIZ. 

 (N) Emphasize natural stabilization processes consistent with the stream type and 

capability when restoring damaged stream banks. Use native vegetation for 

stream bank stabilization whenever practicable. 

Management Measure 6: Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water 

budgets, and flow patterns of wetlands to sustain their ecological function (Forest Plan 

S&G 1302) 

 (C) Avoid long-term reduction in organic ground cover and organic soil layers in 

any wetland (including peat in fens). 

 (E) Avoid any loss of rare wetlands such as fens and springs. 

Management Measure 9: Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible 

number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local 

topography, and climate (Forest Plan S&G 1105). 

 (B) Avoid soil-disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Apply 

travel restrictions to protect soil and water. 

Management Measure 12: Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as 

needed, to prevent resource damage (Forest Plan S&G 1109) 

 (D) Establish effective ground cover on disturbed sites to prevent accelerated onsites soil loss and sediment delivery to streams. Restore ground cover using 

certified native plants as practicable to meet revegetation objectives. Avoid 

persistent or invasive exotic plants. 

Management Measure 13: Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned 

soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15% of any 

activity area (Forest Plan S&G 1103) 

 (B) Operate heavy equipment for land treatments only when soil moisture is 

below the plastic limit, or protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches 

of frozen soil.
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

216 APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF DIRECT/INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS FROM MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Table E-1: Summary of environmental effects from implementation of proposed adaptive management options under Alternative 3 

Possible Grazing Management Actions Soil and Water Rangeland Vegetation & Botany 

A Implement different grazing 

system, and/or change number of pastures 

Implementing different grazing systems could reduce the impacts to the soil and water resource. Rest rotation would allow areas to recover for a period of time with no livestock impacts. Short duration would allow for a shorter time of impacts. Both of these grazing systems, if implemented properly, would benefit the soil and water resource. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Effects of implementing a different gr

site, vegetation, animal behavior, permittee, range improvememanagement objectives. Changing the grazing system would lthe timing, frequency and intensity of defoliation by livestock. Tcan increase the evenness of animal distribution and forage utfurther reduction in size is of no advantage (Heady and Child 1area size increases, effects of uneven grazing patterns throug(Senft et al. 1985; Stuth 1991; Bailey et al. 1996). Therefore, rsize through pasture division would likely result in reduced prepatches of vegetation resulting in less pressure (both frequenc

preferred forage. Management flexibility is increased by being 

the timing and frequency of defoliation by cattle. However, the system is more a function of management commitment and abproperties of any particular grazing system (Briske et al. 2008)Botany: Increasing number of pastures will likely increase evand stocking densities (Senft et al., 1985; Stuth, 1991; Bailey eentirely adverse for botanical resources, additional impacts to and SOLC may incur with the increase or decrease in stocking received little, if any, livestock grazing may see increases in livpositive aspects of this however are that areas that received mtherefore more impacts, will likely see reductions in livestock u

uneven grazing patterns, have the potential to increase plant d

B Use water to control livestock 

distribution (turn water on or off at existing spring developments) 

Controling livestock is key to protect the water resource. If controling livestock distribution limits time in riparian areas, this will mean less impacts to the water resource and riparian areas would occur. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Making water available or unavailable 

the timing and frequency of defoliation by livestock. This is baslivestock will graze more readily within the area of influence of the water is on, and will vacate the area when the water is turnof any particular watering station depends upon topography, slocation relative to other water sources in space and time. Distpasture may improve. Evenness of forage utilization can result 

condition. Botany: See effects of Management Action A. 

C Haul water to temporary tanks to 

influence livestock distribution 

Getting livestock to distribute and utilize a broader area would overall benefit the soil and water resource. Less time on riparian areas would benefit the water resource. There would be detrimental soil impacts to the watering area, but the impacts are small and temporaty and would not be a concern related to the 15% detrimental impact standard. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Distribution of livestock within the pas

previously ungrazed may be consumed. The amount of defoliapalatability, and phenological development of the plant. Shiftingrazed and underutilized patches may be critical to the maintebiological diversity of rangeland ecosystems (Fuhlendorf et al.Individual plants immediately surrounding the water tank (5-10 vigor due to increased wildlife and cattle presence. Botany: See effects of Management Action A. Other potential concentrated use. 

D Construct new permanent water 

development to influence livestock distribution 

Sames as ‘C’, except the soil impact at the water development would be permanent. Rangeland Vegetation: Permanent water sources serve as fo

(Heady and Child 1994). Distribution of livestock within the pasIndividual plants immediately surrounding the development (5 

lose vigor due to increased wildlife and cattle presence. There soil disturbance associated with some of the installation efforts isolated and confined to the immediate vicinity of the range imhardening of the surface will be done if needed. Botany: See effects of Management Action A. Other potential concentrated use. 

E Remove existing water 

development to influence livestock distribution 

Removing an existing water development could influence livestock distribution by 

concentrating them somewhere else to get water. If the replacement water site is on a stream, impacts would occur. This could increase soil compaction, decrease infiltration, decrease vegetative growth, and speed up runoff. Decreased vegetation growth and 

Rangeland Vegetation: There may be some vegetation and swith the removal efforts, however the effects will be isolated anvicinity of the range improvements and reseeding will be done productivity or erosion problems is expected to result from the 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

infiltration could lead to more nutrients available for transport to streams and less of the ability of the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery to streams from upslope areas may be increased. 

Use of forage within the water development area of influence wand intensity over time and be shifted to other areas of the allolivestock within the allotment would be reconfigured as the spa

be altered. Botany: Both positive and negative effects could result under Negative effects would be additional concentration of livestock zone of other watering facilities, decreased forage use within tremoved tank, and increased forage use within the influence zPositive effects are dependant upon the particular plant specie

F Construct fence to exclude 

livestock from areas of concern 

Excluding livestock from areas of concern could be beneficial if these areas are heavily impacted. Soil compaction would decrease, infiltration would increase, there would be an increase vegetative growth, and runoff would be reduced. Increased vegetation growth and infiltration should lead to fewer nutrients available for transport to streams and better 

ability of the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery to 

streams from upslope areas may be reduced if a stream is in the excluded area. Livestock have the tendency to walk along fences and livestock trails created may become bare paths that concentrate and accelerate runoff. These trails would become detrimentally impacted soils. If livestock trails become connected disturbed areas, they may deliver more sediment, nutrients, and pathogens to stream waters. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Livestock have the tendency to walk 

trails created may become bare paths that concentrate and acwould become detrimentally impacted soils. The degree of impmoisture content, particle size, existing vegetation and location landscape. The area within the exclosure would be free from tThose plant species previously grazed by livestock would initiaexclusion with an increase in vigor, production and abundance

been grazed may lose palatability, become decadent as past ydown, and inter plant spacing can become wider. An increase because of decreased utilization. Those plants not previously 

or decrease their level of vigor and production. The decrease w

increased competition. Late successional plant species would successional plant species requiring ground surface levels of sopen canopy for growth or establishment will decrease in abunBotany: Effects are highly dependant upon habitat preferenceSome sensitive species may react positively to exclusion while Any decision regarding exclusion of livestock and the effects obe on a case-by-case basis. See Management Action O for fu

livestock removal. 

G Implement specific dates of use or 

nonuse to protect areas of concern 

Protecting areas of concern by implementing specific dates of use or nonuse will benefit the soil and water resource if they are the areas of concern. Nonuse would provide the most benefit because the livestock will not continue to impact the area of concern. 

Specifice dates of use will not provide much benefit because the use and impacts would 

continue to occur, just at a different time. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Specific dates of use or nonuse contr

Grazing by one kind of animal at the same time every year gencomposition away from the forage preferred by that animal. Botany: See effects of Management Action F. 

H Construct permanent fence to 

influence livestock distribution 

Livestock have the tendency to walk along fences and livestock trails created may become bare paths that concentrate and accelerate runoff. These trails would become detrimentally impacted soils. If livestock trails become connected disturbed areas, they may deliver more sediment, nutrients, and pathogens to stream waters. Fencing could be used as a means to control livestock distribution to allow riparian area recovery and allow natural recovery mechanisms to occur. Increased vegetation growth should lead to fewer nutrients available for transport to streams and better ability of the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery to streams from 

upslope areas may be reduced. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Livestock have the tendency to walk 

trails created may become bare paths that concentrate and acwould become detrimentally impacted soils. The degree of impmoisture content, particle size, existing vegetation, and locatiolandscape. Botany: See effects of Management Actions A and F. 

I Use temporary electric fence for 

short-term control of livestock distribution 

Same effects as ‘H’. Temporary fence may not develop permanent trails and cause as severe of problems and if trails develp that cause problems, the temporary fence can be 

moved to a different location. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Livestock have the tendency to walk 

trails created may become bare paths that concentrate and acwould become detrimentally impacted soils. The degree of impmoisture content, particle size, existing vegetation, and locatiolandscape. Temporary fence may not develop permanent trails problems. Fencing could be used as a means to allow for vegetation recomechanisms. The fenced out portion of pasture would experieduration of the temporary fence (see item M for further discussShifting the mosaic of intensively grazed and underutilized patmaintenance of structural and biological diversity of rangeland al.2006 [in Briske et al. 2008]). Botany: See effects of Management Actions A and F. 

J Remove (permanent or 

temporary) fence to influence livestock distribution 

Removing an existing fence would have minimal impacts to the soil and water resource, unless it crosses a stream or is in close proximity. If livestock continue to use the area, a fence that no longer crosses the stream, would not concentrate livestock at the stream. 

These areas with a fence could be lacking vegetation, contribute sediment, nutrients and pathogens to the stream. Removing the fence would allow the area to heal and would stop contributing sediment, nutrients and pathogens to the stream. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Removing a segment of fence would previously ungrazed at a specific point in time. Cattle and wild

existing trails but with reduced frequency. The degree of influeafter fence removal depends largely on topography, water, covplacement. Botany: See effects of Management Actions A and F. 

K Use of range rider (herding) to 

control livestock distribution 

Range riding involves actively pursuing and pushing livestock to get better utilization across the allotment and pasture. This techniques increases movements and may cause 

Rangeland Vegetation: Range riding involves actively pursuibetter utilization across the allotment and pasture. Use of a ra
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

218 

impacts to riparian areas and streambanks when livestock are driven away from these areas. Use of a range rider may help to achieve proper distribution of livestock and could 

reduce the amount of time that livestock spend in streams and riparian areas overall. However, much of the success of this approach depends entirely on the dependability, energy, and amount of time spent by the ranger rider. 

more even distribution of livestock and could reduce the amouin streams and riparian areas overall. However, much of the sudepends on the dependability, energy, and amount of time speBotany: See effects of Management Actions A and F. 

L Change class of animal (i.e., 

cow/calf to yearling) 

Changing animal class would have little effect on the water and soil resource. Some animals could range more in riparian areas than others, thereby causing more impacts if not properly managed. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Livestock differ in their use of rangela

willingness to access steeper terrain. Size, physiological statucan have an effect on the terrain used and distance traveled to cattle make better use of rugged terrain than do cows with calv

expected that large, heavy animals such as mature cattle will m

gradient greater than 10%. Lactating females with calf are exp

from water. However, behavioral modification of all classes of use in rugged terrain. Accessible areas of flat terrain containin

continue to be preferred by all classes of livestock. Botany: Changing class of livestock has the potential to affect species by alterning grazing patterns (See above). By changin

with calves, areas that had typically seen little, if any use, may This may result in disturbances to sensitive plant species in arinaccessable to cows with calves. A positive aspect however and species associated with those areas, possibly will receive 

M Rest from livestock grazing for 

one or more seasons 

If a period of rest were implemented, degraded riparian systems not able to begin recovery under current management may be able to begin the recovery process. The rest period required for recovery would depend on the type and degree of system degradation. While vegetation communities may be able to recover from excessive grazing in 1 to 5 

years, degraded stream generally take longer to recover, particularly if the channel has become incised or confined (Platts and Raleigh 1984 [in Clary and Webster 1989]). Recovery of impaired, low to moderate gradient systems generally follows a predictable response pattern with vegetation along the stream margin first increasing in vigor and density, then trapping sediment and building up streambanks. Deposition causes 

spreading out on the floodplain. Channel erosion is reduced, and greater exchange of water between the channel, floodplain, and riparian soils takes place. With severely 

entrenched streams (incised streams), recovery, which is accomplished by rising the gully 

floor by annual deposition, may take decades. A period of rest would also allow soils to recover for compaction through cycles of wetting, drying, shrinking, and swelling; roots forcing their way through soil particles; and activities of large soil organisms and small mammals (USDA NRCS, 2001). 

Rangeland Vegetation: Rest from grazing will allow the previ

recover vigor, produce seed, and establish new production. Chdiffer over time and between sites. Sites with deeper soils and plant growth than sites with shallow soils would experience moal. 1995). Plants on deeper soils would not sustain the initial inexpected because nutrients required for plant growth increasinplant material and litter (Coyne et al. 1995). Botany: Rest from livestock grazing will likely only have positivspecies. 

N Change the permitted livestock 

number, permitted (AMs and/or season) 

No grazing system would counteract the impacts of overstocking on a long-term basis (Clary and Webster 1989). Reducing animal months (AMs), if necessary, could be used to achieve compliance with Forest Plan and WCP Handbook standards. Studies have shown that grazing intensity has more of an effect on both vegetation (Clary and Webster 1989) 

and infiltration (Abel-Magid et al, 1987) than does the particular grazing system. However, 

it should be noted that reducing AMs in the context of a variable season of use does not necessarily equate to a reduction in grazing intensity at any given site (for example, a riparian area or an area prone to compaction) during a specific timefame (such as during 

times of high moisture content). The benefits of a reduction in AMs with respect to soil and water resources would depend on how AMs are distributed in time and place. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Stocking rate is the most consistent minfluencing both plant and animal responses to grazing (Heady 1992; Ash and Stafford Smith 1996; Holechek et al. 2001). Reif necessary, could be used to achieve compliance with projec

and WCP Handbook standards. Studies have shown that grazeffect on both vegetation (Clary and Webster 1989) and infiltrathan does the particular grazing system. However, it should be 

the context of a variable season of use does not necessarily eintensity at any given site (for example, a riparian area or an aduring a specific timeframe (such as during times of high moisreduction in AMs with respect to rangeland vegetation would ddistributed in time and place. Botany: Impacts discussed under Management Action F woul

O Do not allow livestock grazing Little information exists to support the benefits to soil and water of any grazing system 

employed (Clary and Webster 1989). Not allowing livestock grazing would be the quickest way for the ecosystem to recover. This would decrease soil compaction, increase infiltration, increase vegetative growth, and slow runoff. Increased vegetation growth and infiltration should lead to fewer nutrients available for transport to streams and better ability of the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery to streams from upslope areas would be reduced. Riparian areas and streams would begin the recovery process from past impacts. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Effects would be similar to that of AlteBotany: Effects of removing livestock are the most highly variactions for sensitive species and probably the least understoopermanently be removed, litter, fine fuel accumulations, and rehave the most impacts. These impacts may be detrimental to to others. Excess accumulation of litter has the potential to rethatch layers may impede plant growth, and reduce potential hof litter and other fine fuels that would have typically been redupossibly lead to an increase in fire potential and severity. Sevlead to soil concerns, noxious weed infestations, and reduced/habitat. Soil disturbance will also likely be reduced. Several seon disturbances to reproduce. Positive impacts to certain spein litter and thatch layers to provide shading, cooling of soils, a

Many species also favor undisturbed areas for their preferred 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

P Change allotment or pasture 

boundaries 

Changing allotment or pasture boundaries would have minimal impacts to the soil and water resources as long as the Forest Plan standards are for utlization and riparian stubble height are adhered to. 

Rangeland Vegetation: A boundary change could either incre

or remain the same if pastures are divided. Incorporating acres could increase the available forage or visa-versa if reducing ac

within the pasture or allotment may be altered, thus effecting liunit area. The division of large pastures can increase the evenforage utilization up to a point where further reduction in size is Child 1994). Management flexibility is increased by being able timing and frequency of defoliation by cattle. Botany: Impacts discussed under Management Action F woul

Q Use salt or other supplements to 

draw livestock toward or away from specific areas 

Salts or supplements to draw livestock away from areas generally mean better livestock distribution. Better livestock distribution could mean fewer impacts to the soil, streams and riparian area, by having livestock spend less time in these areas. This could decrease soil compaction, increase infiltration, increase vegetative growth, and slow runoff. Increased vegetation growth and infiltration should lead to fewer nutrients available 

for transport to streams and better ability of the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery to streams from upslope areas may be reduced. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Salts or supplements to draw livestoc

areas generally mean increased livestock distribution across thplacement on high, steep terrain can improve uniformity of cat

rangeland (Bailey and Jensen 2008). This would reduce prefeof vegetation resulting in less pressure (both frequency and intpreferred forage and more use in areas seldom grazed. Plants 

consumed within the area of influence of supplement. Shifting grazed and underutilized patches may be critical to the maintebiological diversity of rangeland ecosystems (Fuhlendorf et al.Botany: Impacts discussed under Management Action F woul

R Construct brush barriers to protect 

sensitive resource area 

Constructing brush barrier to control livestock distribution to keep livestock from areas of 

concern could be beneficial. Soil compaction could decrease, infiltration could be increased, vegetative growth could increase and the runoff could be slowed. All of this could lead to fewer nutrients available for transport to streams and better ability of the landscape to trap sediment. Sediment, nutrient, and pathogen delivery to streams from upslope areas may be reduced if these barriers are used to limit livestock from streams 

and riparian areas. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Brush barriers are typically used to re

or towards a specific area. The effects of cattle trailing would barea. The degree of cattle dispersal would depend on the surrovegetation structure. Botany: Impacts discussed under Management Action F woul

S Move existing water 

developments, if feasible, away from streams and springs 

Moving water developments away from streams and springs would have a benefit to these 

areas. The benefit would be that the livestock would not be encouraged to be or drawn to 

these areas. If they are not drawn to these areas, less impacts would occur. The closer the water development is to streams or springs, the more impacts can occur. 

Rangeland Vegetation: Moving some developments will allow 

associated with the stream to recover by drawing grazing unguthe water development is moved to a different site, that site woby livestock and wildlife. There would be detrimental soil impathe impacts are small and would not be a concern related to thstandard. Botany: Impacts discussed under Management Action F woul
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

220 

APPENDIX F: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 

ON THE JULY 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT 

The Public Comment Period 

On June 23, 2010, a legal notice was published in the Rapid City Journal notifying the 

public of their opportunity to comment on the Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental 

Assessment (June 2010 EA). A notification was also published in the Custer County 

Chronicle on June 23, 2010 and the News Letter Journal on June 24, 2010. Copies of the 

June 2010 EA were mailed to 29 individuals, groups and state and local agencies who 

expressed interest in the project and to 32 tribal representatives. The EA was also posted 

on the project website. The comment period concluded on July 23, 2010. 

Comments and Analysis 

Responses were received from the following individuals, groups, and agencies: 

• Jim and Charel Pitts, Tepee allotment Permittees 

• Mike Morrison, Lower Beaver and Tepee Allotment Permittee 

• Colin J. Patterson, Norbeck Society 

• Karen Olson, Black Hills Group-Sierra Club 

• Jeffrey Vonk, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 

• Jonathan B. Ratner, Western Watersheds Project, Wyoming Office 

Substantive comments received from these six respondents are summarized below and 

the response to the comment is provided. Substantive comments are defined in 36 CFR 

215.2 as follows: 

“Substantive comments – Comments that are within the scope of the proposed action, are 

specific to the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action and 

include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider.” 

Copies of each comment letter are available in full at the Hell Canyon Ranger District in 

Custer, South Dakota. District and Forest resource specialists and staff reviewed the 

comments received during the comment period, and the appropriate resource specialists 

generated responses to the comments. 

Jim and Charel Pitts 

Comment: Alternative 1 would lead to the subdivision of private land and land 

degradation. Removing cattle from the Forest would severely impact local ranchers and 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

221 

communities. Most ranching operations are relatively small and they depend on permitted 

use of the Forest. Alternative 1 would remove the assets that grazing provides which 

includes reducing wildfire fuel loads and wildlife benefits such as nutritious regrowth and 

water). 

Response: The EA includes a detailed evaluation of the environmental consequences 

of implementing Alternative 1 (the no action/no grazing alternative), including its 

effects to the local economy (see the Livestock Grazing and Economics section of 

Chapter 3) and wildlife, including the potential for fire risk to increase with 

implementation of Alternative 1 (see Wildlife section of Chapter 3. (EA pages 

Comment: We prefer alternative 2. Alternative 3 has many restrictions, specifically the 

wording of the last clause of the adaptive management option A, “Implement different 

grazing system, and/or change number of pastures (deferred rotation in 2, 3, 4, or more 

pastures, rest-rotation, short-duration spring grazing, etc.) to meet objectives on the 

allotment (may include use of permittees private land in the rotation).” This sounds like 

it could include the government mandating the use of my private land outside of what is 

within the allotment and permitted use. 

Response: Your preference for Alternative 2 is noted. The adaptive management 

option clause in question refers only to waived private land already associated with 

the use of a private land permit or on-off permit that occurs within the allotment 

rotation. This would only apply within the permitted season of use. Clarification has 

been added to adaptive management option A. 

Comment: We support proposed projects with the goal of distributing or developing 

water (specifically Haydraw, Sawmill, Gillette Canyon) and are opposed to hauling 

water. If exclosures are proposed for wildlife or archeological reasons, these should be 

paid for and constructed by these resource specialists. 

Response: Both action alternatives include new water developments and improved 

water distribution. How proposed exclosures or other structures are implemented 

would be worked out during the implementation phase of this project. As stated in the 

Project Design Features section of Chapter 2: “Most range improvements would be 

constructed by the permittee with the Forest Service providing most of the materials. 

“ The Forest Service will coordinate with the permittee and district personnel on the 

best methods for funding and implementation. 

Comment: Keep the Hill pasture management the same. 

Response: Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 propose to continue current management 

for this pasture 

Comment: The years during which the analyses were performed, were done during 

drought. These results do not sufficiently portray the potential of the range. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

222 

Response: Both short-term and long-term monitoring results were used in the 

preparation of the EA. Annual monitoring is not used to establish trend but to 

determine whether standards and management practices are implemented as detailed 

in the AMP and Forest Plan, and to identify the next management action if needed. 

Long-term monitoring has been 

occurring on these allotments for several decades prior to the current analysis. Trend 

has been established based on these long-term data. 

Comment: Costs—permittees put in a lot of work—it is a benefit to the range and 

wildlife. 

Response: Permittee and Forest Service costs estimates are provided in the Livestock 

Grazing and Economics section of Chapter 3. The impacts of livestock grazing 

operations are discussed in the EA, including both adverse and beneficial impacts. 

Mike Morrison 

Comment: Lower Deadhorse Spring is a major water source and the proposed action 

would eliminate cattle use here. Elk muck this spring up too, just as much or more than 

cattle. 

Response: As stated in the EA in Table 5, the riparian area associated with this 

spring is not meeting desired conditions. The proposed action includes expanding the 

current exclosure around the riparian area and moving the existing tank so that 

water is provided for livestock while allowing enhanced protection of the riparian 

area. The objective is to eliminate cattle use within the expanded exclosure, while 

providing an alternative water source for livestock. If riparian area conditions 

following implementation do not progress toward desired conditions in a reasonable 

timeframe (e.g. if elk continue to impact the riparian area following fencing and keep 

it from improving), adaptive management option(s) would be implemented. 

Continuing current management for Lower Deadhorse Spring is a component of 

Alternative 2 and is evaluated in the EA. 

Comment: The exclosure fence near heritage site 39CU0774 should be expanded instead 

of piping and relocating to the tank. If the concern is cattle trailing, what is to keep them 

from continuing to use the trails? 

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The Forest Service developed this 

proposal to address a cultural resource concern and believes this action would move 

conditions in this area toward desired conditions and provide enhanced protection of 

sensitive resources in this area. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred 

with this finding. However, if this proposed action does not address the concern, 

adaptive management option(s) would be implemented. The Forest Service will work 

with the permittees during implementation of proposed projects. In addition, it 

should be noted that the tank lies firmly within the site boundaries. If we expand the 

exclosure, we exclude the water. This is certainly not desired for range. Continued 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

223 

damage to heritage resources in this location would result in an adverse effect. 

Therefore, the only solution is to move the tank. The solution for the trailing through 

the site is much more complex. The site lies across a large area (10+ acres), 2 roads, 

and varying elevations. It is our opinion that in moving the tank, the most intense 

areas of resource damage will be protected, but we do recognize that trailing will not 

cease over the site. 

Comment: Summit and Sherwood Springs (June 2010 EA, page 53) were revamped in 

the 1980’s. They work well now; don’t mess with the engineering at these sites. 

Response: These actions are listed in Table 9 and are actions that are on-going, inprogress and planned activities separate from this proposed action. These actions in 

Table 9 were evaluated as part of the cumulative effects analysis in the EA. These 

actions are not part of the proposed actions included in Alternatives 2 or 3 and are 

either already in progress or planned in the near future. Therefore, concerns with 

these projects are outside the scope of this analysis. Please contact the district range 

staff if you would like more discussion regarding these separate projects. 

Comment: Do not fence all water sources out (June 2010 EA, page 72). These water 

sources in the Tepee allotment are vital. 

Response: Alternative 3 includes new fences or expansion of existing fences at 2 

springs, ponds, riparian areas and cultural resource sites where desired conditions 

are not being met on the Tepee Allotment (EA page 36). This is a small percentage of 

the available springs, ponds and riparian areas within the Tepee Allotment. Water 

will be provided for cattle outside of those fenced areas. Alternative 2 evaluates the 

continuation of current management at these sites. 

Comment: Don’t change management exclusively for elk; multiple use has worked for 

generations (June 2010 EA, page 104). 

Response: This section of the EA describes Forest Plan Management Area 5.4 and 

how it relates to elk. All proposed actions under Alternative 2 and 3 are designed to 

be in compliance with the Forest Plan, which includes following the objectives, 

standards and guidelines for various management areas and to move toward desired 

conditions for these areas when proposing management activities. The desired 

conditions for Management Area 5.4 includes providing big game winter range while 

maintaining health plant communities; grazing is managed to be compatible with big 

game objectives (EA, Table 1). 

Comment: If trigger point is reached at Townley Spring (June 2010 EA, page 189), 

would the water be fenced out? This is a critical water source. The road would be blocked 

in order to fence it and this would also block access for fire and maintenance. Townley 

well does not work well, possibly due to a pipe issue. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

224 

Response: If monitoring at this site shows a need to implement an adaptive 

management option, the Forest Service will consult with the permittees to determine 

the best available option. 

Comment: The Jasper fire area needs to be control burned. 

Response: Use of prescribed fire is outside the scope of this analysis. However, 

there is a separate project in the planning stages called Hell Canyon Maintenance 

Burn that is evaluating the use of prescribed fire in the Jasper Fire area. You may 

contact the Hell Canyon Ranger District office in Custer SD for further information 

on the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn. 

Norbeck Society 

Comment: We assert with great disappointment that the EA is incomplete and 

inconclusive for a document that will be the basis for a management decision for decades. 

It is not a thorough and honest effort to answer the questions posed in the “needs’ section 

of the EA. The outstanding omission is a collective, synthesized assessment of how the 

Hell Canyon district is going to achieve the identified needs for riparian health, much less 

meet the goals, objectives, standards and guidelines of the Phase II Amended Forest Plan. 

We suggest you use the baseline data but expound on it and offer it again for public 

consideration. By reference we resubmit our October 29, 2009 comments and concerns 

related to native habitat, botanical issues, etc. 

Response: How the alternatives would meet project objectives and address key issues 

is summarized in Table 7 of the EA and is based on the detailed analysis contained in 

Chapter 3 of the EA. Chapter 3 of the EA was prepared using comprehensive 

specialist reports for each relevant resource area which are available in the project 

record. Desired conditions for each allotment’s benchmarks and key areas (as 

summarized in Table 5) were developed based on the desired vegetation conditions in 

the project area (Table 1 and 2) which were developed based on guidance from the 

Forest Plan. Chapter 1 of the EA summarizes the project’s relationship to the Forest 

Plan. Appendix D lists applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and 

watershed conservation practices. The Project Design Features and Monitoring 

sections of Chapter 2, which includes allowable use levels, are actions integral to 

implementation of Alternative 2 and 3 and were based on relevant Forest Plan 

direction. 

The Forest has an obligation to show consistency with the Forest Plan; this is done in 

the EA and will also be discussed as part of the decision document for this project. 

Comment: The document’s undeveloped assessment and alternatives are outdated 

livestock production proposals that today’s range managers use as part of a strategy to 

maintain healthy ecosystems for all animals that depend upon grassland, forest and 

riparian habitats. A complete picture and story are missing. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

225 

Response: The EA describes the range of alternatives considered and developed (EA 

Chapter 2) to address the specific purpose and need for this project (EA Chapter 1) 

including a complete assessment of the environmental effects of implementing these 

alternatives (Chapter 3). Management practices included in the action alternatives 

are based on the best available science and current agency direction. 

Comment: There are no proposed actions that demonstrate proper land management 

could be achieved and impaired habitats could heal, with the exception of French Creek 

in Alternative 3. Proposed alternatives are driven by the approach that more water tanks, 

pipelines and fences are the answer to better livestock management and then allow 10 

years or more for these methods to take place, if at all. 

Response: Desired conditions are currently being met in many areas of these 

allotments and/or existing conditions are moving toward desired conditions in a 

reasonable timeframe, indicating that current management is effective in many areas 

and there is no need for change (as summarized in Table 5). However, site-specific 

resource concern areas have been identified on the French Creek, Lithograph, Lower 

Beaver, and Tepee allotments. Specific proposed actions have been developed for 

these allotments to address these concerns under Alternative 3, as described in detail 

in Chapter 2 and analyzed in Chapter 3. Under Alternative 3, adaptive management 

would apply so that if the initial action implemented is not successful in ‘healing that 

impaired habitat’ or otherwise address the resource concern, a new option would be 

applied. 

As stated in the monitoring plan (Appendix B), upland and riparian conditions would 

be monitored in both the short-and long term. Trigger points for changing 

management are based on both short-term and long term monitoring results; changes 

could be implemented monthly or annually or longer, depending on the area and the 

concern. 

Comment: Removing 50 pairs of overstocked animals is a step in the right direction. 

But, to correct overstocking, the Forest Service avoids making unpopular social decisions 

and simply opts to move them to Water Draw, an allotment that is currently without 

livestock grazing. The money required to “improve” Water Draw for a few domestic 

animals is staggering. 

Response: Alternative 2 includes the continuation of no grazing on the Water Draw 

allotment and how this addresses project objectives. Alternative 1 includes the 

phasing out of all livestock permits within the project area and how this addresses 

project objectives. The funding for the proposed actions for Water Draw to support 

the movement of 50 head from the French Creek Allotment under Alternative 3 are 

estimated and discussed in the Livestock Grazing and Economics section of Chapter 

3. These economic considerations are weighed and balanced by the decision-maker 

along with environmental consequences of alternatives and how the alternatives 

address the purpose and need for action. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

226 

Comment: The Forest Service has the authority now to make changes if an allotment is 

overstocked, but instead it suggests to the public that the only way these decisions can be 

made is by keeping permitted AUMs (which are not a required numerical commitment) 

and rearranging them to other pastures and allotments. This is unfitting for a public land 

manager that has the task of balancing multiple uses. 

Response: Desired conditions are currently being met in many areas of these 

allotments and/or existing conditions are moving toward desired conditions in a 

reasonable timeframe, indicating that current management is effective in many areas 

and there is no need for change (as summarized in Table 5). Where resource 

concerns were identified, proposed actions have been developed for Alternative 3 

that would best respond to that concern. This includes a reduction in stocking on the 

French Creek Allotment and site-specific structural improvement on others, as 

described in Chapter 2. Reducing stocking to meet the purpose and need instead of 

implementing structural range improvements was considered as an alternative 

(Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study section of Chapter 2). 

Alternative 1 includes not grazing any of the allotments. 

Comment: The EA indicated that 67% of the project area falls within big game winter 

range. In balancing multiple uses, the EA did not consider removal of livestock earlier in 

the season to account for winter habitats (food and cover) and to reduce pressure on 

grasses, forbs and shrubs in some areas. 

Response: Changing the season of use is an adaptive management option available 

under Alternative 3 and could be implemented if needed (Table 4). Discussions have 

occurred with the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks staff to ensure that any major 

concerns with season of use are addressed (see responses to comments from that 

agency later in this document). The Forest Plan proper allowable use guidelines are 

listed in Table 6 on page 39 of the EA and are based on current range condition and 

the type of grazing system (EA, Project Design Features section of Chapter 2). These 

utilization guidelines are based on the fact that in general, this level of use for the 

grazing system for which it is proposed is appropriate and would leave sufficient 

residual vegetation. These percentages can be adjusted for specific pastures or 

allotments if needed to address other more site-specific objectives and can be 

achieved through monitoring and adaptive management. 

Comment: The EA does not discuss the use of the elk habitat suitability model which 

was a collaborative revision with the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Experiment Station 

(Rumble, et al.) and Black Hills National Forest. The model is a scientifically valid tool 

to classify elk habitat that should have been used, particularly in light of the high number 

of roads, wildfire effects to habitat, loss of tree cover and diet overlap between elk and 

cattle. It is especially needed to establish baseline data for management area 5.4. 

Response: As per the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II 

amendment to the Forest Plan, page II-33, elk habitat elements are provided through 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

227 

structural stage objectives. Structural stage objectives have replaced habitat 

capability (HABCAP) effectiveness guidelines through the Phase II amendment. 

Structural stage objectives promote understory shrubs. As stated on page II-12, 

“generally, Phase I Amendment standards and guidelines pertaining to habitat 

effectiveness for deer and elk are deleted and replaced with Management Area 

structural stage objectives.” For these reasons, the elk habitat suitability model was 

not used for this analysis. 

The Wildlife Section of the EA describes the potential for effects to Rocky Mountain 

elk and mule deer (demand species), to bighorn sheep (Forest Service sensitive 

species), white-tailed deer (Management Indicator Species) and discusses the 

project’s relationship to Management Area 5.4. Conclusions reached include that, 

while impacts could occur to habitat for these species, habitat conditions would likely 

improve with implementation of Alternative 3 over the current condition (as 

summarized in Table 15). This analysis was based on the comprehensive evaluation 

contained in the Wildlife Specialist Report and Biological Assessment/Evaluation 

(Clark 2010) available in the project record. The wildlife evaluation reached the 

conclusion that, assuming Forest Plan standards are met, all alternatives would 

allow the Forest-wide elk and mule deer populations to remain stable, and would 

allow for the attainment of Forest Plan Objective 217. 

Comment: We implore the Forest Service to use the plethora of Black Hills scientific 

studies that have been conducted on native large ungulates. 

Response: Several local literature sources have been used in the preparation of this 

analysis and have been cited in the Wildlife Report and Wildlife Biological 

Assessment and Evaluation (Clark 2010a and 2010b). Other local studies have been 

reviewed by the project biologist. A comprehensive evaluation of the potential for 

effects to wildlife species is included in these documents and used in preparation of 

the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 of the EA. This document is available in the project 

record. Specialist Reports used in the preparation of the EA were specifically listed at 

the beginning of Chapter 3 and again at the beginning of the references section. 

Because the EA is a summary of the more comprehensive evaluation conducted, not 

all scientific studies used in the comprehensive evaluation were specifically discussed 

or cited in the EA. 

Comment: We do not think the decision that you will make will be based on a document 

that has a scientifically-based approach which gives fair and equal weight to range, 

botanical, hydrological and wildlife sciences. 

Response: The best available science was used in preparation of each individual 

specialist report prepared for this project and in preparation of the Environmental 

Assessment. Specialist Reports used in the preparation of the EA were specifically 

listed at the beginning of Chapter 3 and again at the beginning of the references 

section. Because the EA is a summary of the more comprehensive evaluation 

conducted, not all scientific studies used in the comprehensive evaluation were 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

228 

specifically discussed or cited in the EA, as stated above. The decision document will 

provide the rationale for the decision made and will weigh and balance all 

environmental impacts including those to range, botany, soil and water, wildlife, 

cultural resources and socioeconomics. 

Comment: If key infrastructure elements cannot be put in place in short order, then that 

multiple use should not take place until all components and implementation tools are 

available with a demonstrative, measurable level of effectiveness. 

Response: A prioritized implementation plan and schedule, with estimated cost, has 

been prepared for Alternative 3 by the project interdisciplinary team and will be 

updated if needed, reviewed and approved by the Line Officer at the time of his 

decision documenting selection of an alternative for implementation and used in the 

subsequent Allotment Management Plans. Actions have been categorized into 

priority groups for implementation based in part on the type of resource concern they 

are proposed to address, recognizing that implementation is dependent on available 

staff and funding. Funding is dictated by Congress and varies from year to year; 

securing funding is outside the scope of this document. This document is available in 

the project record. 

As stated in the EA in Chapter 2 under Alternative 3, actions would likely occur over 

a 10 year period, the life span of the grazing permit. This does not mean that actions 

would take 10 years to be implemented, only that through the course of initial 

proposed actions, monitoring and adaptive management options when necessary, the 

sum total of implementation of all of these actions would occur over the 10-year life 

span of the permit. The monitoring plans in Appendix B also describe timeframes for 

monitoring (with priority given to monitoring on the French Creek Allotment) and 

trigger points. 

Black Hills Group – Sierra Club 

Comment: We are convinced that the decision to prepare an environmental assessment 

rather than an environmental impact statement is a serious mistake. This project is of 

sufficient importance, size, and scope to require an EIS, includes multiple allotments and 

involves significant issues and cumulative impacts. 

Response: Based on internal scoping with the resource specialists on the 

interdisciplinary team and public scoping, initial preliminary effects analysis did not 

identify the potential for significant environmental effects from implementation of the 

initial proposed action. The significance of environmental effects of a proposed 

action determines whether an EIS must be prepared. The conclusions reached in the 

effects analysis for each key issue and relevant resource in the EA will be used by the 

Line Officer to understand the consequences and trade-offs of taking action. 

Environmental effects described in the EA included evaluation of type (direct, 

indirect, cumulative and beneficial or adverse), context (are the effects site-specific, 

local or regional), duration (long- or short-term) and intensity (these are listed in the 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

229 

Methodology Section of Chapter 3). Based on his review of these conclusions in the 

EA, the Line Officer will determine whether or not to prepare an EIS. If the Line 

Officer determines that the proposed action may have a significant effect on the 

quality of the human environment, a notice of intent to prepare an EIS will be 

published. Otherwise, a Finding of No Significant Impact will be prepared and 

included as part of a decision notice. 

Comment: The EA contains only two alternatives – a no action alternative and a current 

management alternative. This truncated range of alternatives forecloses the ability to 

study and analyze options that might protect, restore, or enhance the environment in the 

project area. These alternatives are in effect analyzing the status quo; i.e. grazing as it is 

now exists 

Response: The EA includes a detailed evaluation of three alternatives: Alternative 1 

– No Action, Alternative 2 – Current Management and Alternative 3 – Proposed 

Action, Using Adaptive Management (Chapter 3 of the EA). Several other 

alternatives were also considered by the interdisciplinary team and the Line Officer, 

but these were dismissed from detailed analysis as described in Chapter 2 of the EA. 

Comment: The EA fails to analyze the effects and impacts of climate change or actions 

that might be taken for the mitigation of adaption of the resource in light of those 

anticipated impacts. This omission ignores the USDA’s new 2010-2015 Strategic Plan 

(USDA Forest Service, National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change, July 

2010). A strong argument can be made that an assessment of the risks and vulnerabilities 

resulting from climate change needs to be done at this project level. This should include 

consideration of plant community succession dynamics, frequency and intensity of 

extreme events and disturbance regimes, magnitude of temperature and precipitation 

changes, patterns and routes of relating to species dispersal, water quality and the ability 

of systems in the project area to adapt. 

Response: How the success of the alternatives could be affected by climate change 

and the predicted impacts of the alternatives on climate change was evaluated in the 

EA (Chapter 3, pages 135-139). 

Comment: Your agency should reevaluate the AUM capacity for each of the grazing 

allotments. Using the definition of AUM (EA, page 141) is no longer accurate; forage 

consumption has increased due to larger sized cows and calves (see D. Uresk, 2010: 

Cattle weights on USDA Forest Service lands by state with cow and calf forage 

consumption. In press. Rangelands). 

Response: Suitable and capable rangelands are described in the Rangeland 

Vegetation section of Chapter 3 of the EA. As stated in the EA, capability and 

suitability were determined for each allotment using the Regional Desk Guide for 

Determination of Rangeland Suitability for Livestock Grazing (USDA Forest Service 

2004). As also described in the Rangeland Vegetation section of the EA, capable 

acres for each allotment were reviewed for this analysis, along with current site-
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

230 

specific conditions and prior actual use adjustments over several years to determine 

carrying capacity. Stocking rates are determined based on this modeled carrying 

capacity but also take into consideration a variety of other factors, as described in 

the EA. Stocking rates were determined to be meeting management objectives for the 

Bull Flats, Lithograph, Lower Beaver and Tepee allotments. The proposed action 

includes a reduction in stocking rate for the French Creek Allotment. A generalized 

carrying capacity and stocking rate were calculated for the Water Draw allotment 

because adding livestock to this currently vacant allotment is proposed under 

Alternative 3. 

The Forest Service agrees that the general trend of average cattle weights has 

increased over the years and thus a corresponding increase in forage consumption as 

detailed in the Uresk article. Use is based on Forest Plan utilization guidelines (page 

39 of EA) which identify allowable use criteria. Any increase in consumption rates 

due to larger cattle is addressed at this point—so theoretically the allowable use 

guideline will be met sooner during the season of use with larger animals than with 

the same number of lighter animals. Over the years, stocking rates have been 

adjusted, when needed, from the original stocking rates based on these guidelines, 

resource objectives, the need to meet other environmental and social concerns, as 

well as implementing changes in grazing management systems. 

Comment: In order to make these allotments more resilient habitat, grazing needs to be 

regulated taking into consideration the amount of forage that should be retained annually 

on the allotments. Such a system would benefit the quality of the resource, afford better 

protection for native plants and provide better quality wildlife habitat. This would also 

use of monitoring protocols that provide objective, quantitative data. 

Response: The proposed action includes allowable forage use limits and residual 

levels of key species for each pasture and each allotment, and these are consistent 

with the Forest Plan (see Utilization Levels section of Project Design Features in 

Chapter 2). Monitoring protocols have the goal of providing objective, quantitative 

data, particularly those long-term monitoring methods used to determine long-term 

trends. Monitoring methods are described at the end of Chapter 2 and a specific 

monitoring strategy is included in Appendix B. Habitat resilience is also discussed in 

the Climate Change section of Chapter 3. 

Comment: We believe you should take this opportunity to decisively move forward to 

adopt the Robel Pole protocol for monitoring on the project allotments, as we stated in 

our scoping comments. We do not believe that your agency could find a quicker, more 

economical and accurate method of grazing monitoring. See Uresk and Benzon 2007, 

Uresk, Mergen and Benzon 2009 and Uresk and Benzon 2009. 

Response: The Forest Service agrees that this method is a useful tool and is one that 

can be used whenever appropriate and practical. Robel Pole protocol is one 

monitoring method out of many options that could be used for these allotments. More 

detail has been added to the monitoring description at the end of Chapter 2 and to the 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

231 

monitoring plan in Appendix B to acknowledge that the Robel Pole protocol would be 

available for use, depending on the specific objectives of the site, and the time and 

funding available. 

Comment: The EA lacks sufficient information, data and facts to enable us to thoroughly 

review the actions proposed. Baseline information such as pasture sizes, geographic 

characteristics, and detailed discussions of wildlife and native plant species is necessary. 

This is needed in order to comply with Phase II of the Forest Plan. 

Response: Allotment descriptions are included in Chapter 1 of the EA and discussed 

in more detail in the Rangeland Vegetation section of Chapter 3. Wildlife species and 

native plant species (Botany and Rangeland Vegetation sections) are described in 

Chapter 3. More detailed information is included in the resource specialist reports 

and GIS layers used in the analysis. These are available in the project record. 

Comment: Two-thirds of the project area is in big game winter range. This necessitates a 

critical look at the conflict between big game and livestock due to completion for forage. 

Heavy grazing stresses wildlife habitat through pressure on grasses, forbs and shrubs. 

Unremeded, this destroys habitat resilience. 

Response: As stated in a previous response and in an additional response below, big 

game winter range was considered. This is described in the EA in Chapter 1 and 

again in the Wildlife Section of Chapter 3. Interactions between livestock and big 

game species, such as elk, is briefly described in the EA and evaluated in detail in the 

Wildlife Specialist Report. Heavy grazing is not a common characteristic on any of 

the allotments in the project area, with the exception of some portions of the French 

Creek Allotment; in general habitat conditions are stable or improving in many 

areas; where concerns were noted by the IDT, proposed actions are included in 

Alternative 3 to address them. The Forest Service is working with the South Dakota 

Game and Fish Department to ensure that big game management objectives are 

adequately addressed. 

Comment: You should have used the elk habitat suitability model developed by the 

Rapid City Unit of the Rocky Mountain Research Station for the Black Hills National 

Forest. This should be rectified in an EIS. 

Response: As per the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Phase II 

amendment to the Forest Plan, page II-33, elk habitat elements are provided through 

structural stage objectives. Structural stage objectives have replaced habitat 

capability (HABCAP) effectiveness guidelines through the Phase II amendment. 

Structural stage objectives promote understory shrubs. As stated on page II-12, 

“generally, Phase I Amendment standards and guidelines pertaining to habitat 

effectiveness for deer and elk are deleted and replaced with Management Area 

structural stage objectives.” For these reasons, the elk habitat suitability model was 

not used for this analysis. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

232 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 

Comment: It is apparent that local, relevant and peer-reviewed research is lacking in the 

EA. This project area encompasses some of the most critical year-round big game habitat 

in the Black Hills. More than 67% of the project area is within Management Area 5.4. 

White tail and mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, pronghorn antelope, Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep, Merriam’s wild turkey and mountain lion are big game species that occur 

in the project area. Five of these species are afforded some level of special management 

in your Forest Plan. More local, relevant science regarding these species should have 

been used in the EA. This should include SAIC 2003 and authors such as Kennedy, 

Stefanich, Hippensteel, Osborn, Zimmerman, Rumble, Uresk, Brundige, Millspaugh, 

Dubreuil, DePerno, Griffen, Benzon, Schmitz, Goldstein, Merwin, Lehman, Thompson, 

Fecske, Berdan, and Rice. The EA does little to demonstrate how Management Area 5.4 

management goals were integrated into the action alternatives. 

Response: Several local literature sources were used in preparation of this analysis 

and have been cited in the Wildlife Report and Biological Assessment and Evaluation 

(Clark 2010a and 2010b). Other local studies have been reviewed by the project 

biologist. A comprehensive evaluation of the potential for effects to wildlife species is 

included in these reports and used in preparation of the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 

of the EA. This document is available in the project record. Specialist Reports used in 

the preparation of the EA were specifically listed at the beginning of Chapter 3 and 

again at the beginning of the references section. Because the EA is a summary of the 

more comprehensive evaluation conducted, not all scientific studies used in the 

comprehensive evaluation were specifically discussed or cited in the EA. More detail 

has been added to the Chapter 1 of the EA describing the project’s relationship to 

Management Area 5.4. 

Antelope and mountain lions are not specifically identified in the Forest Plan or other 

Forest-level direction documents that require project-specific evaluation through the 

NEPA process. Turkeys are listed as demand species on the Black Hills National 

Forest. Demand species are also not a category of species for which project-specific 

NEPA analysis is required; this is up to the discretion of the district biologist 

depending on the potential for impacts. 

Comment: The EA should be more specific in its intent and refine a need for livestock 

grazing that is beneficial to the range, including wildlife habitat. We suggest a need such 

as to strive for better diversity and abundance of native vegetation for wildlife habitats 

with an emphasis on big game species such as bighorn sheep, mule deer and grassland 

birds (e.g. sharp-tailed grouse, grasshopper sparrow, and ruffed grouse). 

Response: The difference between existing conditions and desired conditions forms 

the basis for the need for action. Existing and desired conditions are described in 

Chapter 1 for the plant communities in the project area. More site-specific desired 

conditions for benchmarks and key areas for each allotment are described in Table 5. 

Desired conditions include managing for a mosaic of plant species, structures and 

ground cover to maintain soil stability and provide wildlife habitat, including 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

233 

managing for perennial, native species, as described in the EA. Specific habitat 

conditions for bighorn sheep, mule deer and grassland birds were not identified as 

lacking or in less than desired condition in the project area and therefore, were not 

identified as a specific need. Effects to these species are described in the Wildlife 

Section of the EA. 

The three need statements that guided the development of the action alternatives are 

listed in Chapter 1 and include 1) improving management so it is consistent with the 

Forest Plan; 2) improving bank stability and increasing riparian vegetation diversity 

and abundance in specific areas so spring and stream health, wildlife habitat, and 

riparian ecosystem conditions are moving toward desired conditions; and 3) 

improving administration on the French Creek allotment to minimize conflicts with 

private landowners, where feasible and practical. 

The first two need statements encompass the need to manage for wildlife habitat. 

Livestock grazing in moderation can improve nutritional value and palatability of 

forage in the project area. The proposed adaptive management strategy under 

Alternative 3 would allow the Forest Service to adjust grazing pastures and timing if 

conditions warrant in order to maintain or improve habitat quality. Other upcoming 

projects planned on the district, such as the Hell Canyon Maintenance Burn, may 

also contribute to creation of additional habitat diversity. 

Comment: We concur with the needs for riparian areas, especially given the current 

conditions of the French Creek Allotment. If this system were healthy it would support 

brook trout and long-nosed dace. We support the identification of the French Creek 

allotment as one of the identified impaired areas. We applaud the establishment of MIM 

transects and offer our assistance in field monitoring. 

Response: Thank you for your support. 

Comment: The EA suggests that implementation of management changes on the French 

Creek Allotment will not occur for up to 6 years post Decision. A 6 year wait is not 

necessary with MIM because MIM can indicate within 3-4 years if management changes 

are working. Waiting this long contradicts the EA statement on page 73. 

Response: Certain actions on the French Creek allotment would occur immediately 

under Alternative 3. These include reduction in the number of head and a reduction 

in the number of days of use for the first 2 years in the French Creek pasture. A range 

rider would also be used to keep livestock from the riparian areas along French 

Creek. After these 2 years of initial change, the pasture would be added to the 

rotation with the other four pastures. In order to provide enough time to determine if 

the four-pasture, deferred rotation grazing system is successful, year 6 was identified 

as the time when an adaptive management option such as fencing the creek or 

removing livestock completely from this pasture would be taken if the deferred 

rotation system was not working. In a 4-pasture deferred system, the French Creek 

pasture would be used every year but at different times of the year. This timeframe 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

234 

allows for determining if the revised system is working or not. Short-term monitoring 

would be done throughout this trial period to watch for yearly fluctuations. 

Clarification has been added to this section of Chapter 2 to ensure this strategy is 

clear. 

Comment: We request that the EA add an adaptive management option that creates 

temporary, smaller pastures or cells to focus livestock as a vegetation management tool. 

This could be useful in the control of non-native vegetation that is unpalatable to wild 

ungulates after flowering and curing. When non-native grasses such as Timothy, smooth 

brome and Kentucky bluegrass dominate botanical communities, monitoring interprets 

this as a stable community but this is not a botanically rich community that meets the 

intent of the Forest Plan and multiple use mandates. These areas could be the focus of 

different livestock management 

Response: The EA states that project objectives do not include managing for 

increases in these non-native species. Methods for decreasing the prevalence of these 

species are discussed on page 10 and conclude that changes in livestock grazing have 

not been shown to be as effective as other methods such as herbicide and ripping and 

reseeding; these efforts have disadvantages, as discussed on page 10. The Forest 

Service agrees that concentrating livestock use in small cells or pastures is a 

potential management option to reduce the prevalence of these non-native species. 

While encouraging native species diversity is a component of the desired conditions 

for the project area, specifically reducing non-native species was not identified as an 

objective of this project (specific objectives of this project are listed on page 11). That 

said, the Forest Service is willing to work with you on the goal of reducing non-native 

species where feasible. The creation of temporary, smaller pastures or cells to focus 

livestock as a vegetation management tool has been added to Adaptive Management 

Option A in Table 4. 

Comment: We do not believe the palatability ratings provided for Timothy, smooth 

brome and Kentucky Bluegrass for big game (and your reference should perhaps be 

USDA Forest Service 1996b instead of 1996c) are valid for the Black Hills. The 1996 

Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide references are taken from Region 

4. This is not scientifically supported for the Black Hills. We request that the final EA 

indicate that range management will not strive to manage for these species. One measure 

of this might be acres of decreased non-natives (which can include weeds) during the 

lifetime of this range Decision. 

Response: We are unclear regarding the reference to Region 4 development of the 

RAMTG; the Rocky Mountain Region RAMTG (as we have cited) was reviewed by 

several experts in the field, including experts from Wyoming and Colorado. Esser 

(Esser 1993) was cited in the EA for this reference to palatability ratings. The 

citation should also include Uchytil; this has been corrected in the EA. 

The EA currently states that project objectives do not include managing for 

increases in these non-native species. Methods for decreasing the prevalence of 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

235 

these species are discussed on page 10 and state that management is not intending to 

focus on maintaining non-native grasses but reflects the inherent stability of the 

naturalized non-natives. Changes in livestock management (at the allotment scale 

such as with particular rotations or grazing systems) have not been shown to be 

effective in eliciting a change in non-native species composition when these are well 

established. 

The citations in this section have been updated to include the correct citation for the 

1996 Training Guide and the addition of Uchytil 1993. 

Comment: Table 15, page 111 should include an additional detrimental effect of 

overgrazing on bighorn sheep. It is documented that bighorn sheep will leave their 

familiar territory in order to seek forage when the range is overgrazed. These movements 

expose sheep to unfamiliar territory, undetermined escape routes, malnutrition, 

vulnerability to lambs and overall stress. This situation happened a few years ago on the 

Mystic Ranger District. 

Response: Table 15 has been updated to include this potential for effect. 

Comment: Table 5 for Alternative 3. The adaptive management options listed in this 

table are a reiteration of management options that the Forest has had available. The EA 

does not explain how these strategies are most responsive, innovative and how they will 

employ applicable and relevant science. Table 5 narrows the options to less than those 

listed in Table 4. We suggest the Table 5 column heading be reworded to say that these 

are the most likely options to be used first, but that the whole list in Table 4 could be 

employed. 

Response: You are correct that the adaptive management options listed in Table 5 

are indeed those that are most likely to be used but that any of the options in Table 4 

could be selected. Clarification has been added to Table 5. 

Comment: We suggest the use of the Robel Pole as an adaptive management monitoring 

option as we suggested in our scoping letter. It is a Region 2-approved monitoring 

method, Forest staff attended training in its use in 2007 and three publications indicate its 

applicability and usefulness in the Black Hills. Use of this method provides measurable, 

repeatable and defensible monitoring and should be used in conjunction with or instead 

of ocular estimates. The EA should provide a detailed response as to why or why not this 

method was not included in the monitoring plan. 

Response: The Forest Service agrees that this method is a useful tool and is one that 

can be used whenever appropriate and practical. Robel Pole protocol is one 

monitoring method out of many options that could be used for these allotments. More 

detail has been added to the monitoring description at the end of Chapter 2 and to the 

monitoring plan in Appendix B to acknowledge that the Robel Pole protocol would be 

available for use, depending on the specific objectives of the site, and the time and 

funding available. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

236 

Comment: The EA should assess if 40% utilization is more appropriate in some areas 

compared to 50%; does grazing at 50% use leave sufficient residual vegetation for all 

ecological needs, particularly in Management Area 5.4? 

Response: These percentages come from the Forest Plan and are based on current 

range condition and the type of grazing system (EA, Project Design Features section 

of Chapter 2). These percentages are based on the fact that in general, this level of 

use for which the grazing system is proposed is appropriate and would leave 

sufficient residual vegetation. These percentages can be adjusted for specific pastures 

or allotments if needed to address other more site-specific objectives and can be 

achieved through monitoring and adaptive management. 

Comment: We suggest that the EA make clear that management changes would occur 

within a short time frame in order to meet Forest Plan directives, as was done in the 

Mystic Range Project 2010 DEIS. The EA identified that changes would happen over a 

10-year course. 

Response: As stated in the EA in Chapter 2 under Alternative 3, actions would likely 

occur over a 10 year period, the life span of the grazing permit. This does not mean 

that actions would take 10 years to be implemented, only that through the course of 

initial proposed actions, monitoring and adaptive management options when 

necessary, the sum total of implementation of all of these actions would occur over 

the 10-year life span of the permit. The monitoring plans in Appendix B also describe 

timeframes for monitoring (with priority given to monitoring on the French Creek 

Allotment) and trigger points. 

A prioritized implementation plan and schedule, with estimated cost, has been 

prepared for Alternative 3 by the project interdisciplinary team and will be updated if 

needed, reviewed and approved by the Line Officer at the time of his decision 

documenting selection of an alternative for implementation and used in the 

subsequent Allotment Management Plans. Actions have been categorized into 

priority groups for implementation based in part on the type of resource concern they 

are proposed to address, recognizing that implementation is dependent on available 

staff and funding. Funding is dictated by Congress and varies from year to year; 

securing funding is outside the scope of this document. This document is available in 

the project record. 

This has been clarified in the EA. 

Comment: The EA does not address how the Water Draw Allotment needs grazing 

disturbance and that livestock grazing is the appropriate tool to maintain or improve 

habitats in Management Area 5.4. MIM transects should be conducted on this allotment 

as baseline riparian data prior to livestock use. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

237 

Response: All Management Area designations in the project area allow livestock 

grazing. The entire project area is currently authorized for grazing. This analysis 

and decision will decide whether or not this authorization should continue. As stated 

on Page 1 of the EA, the purpose of the project is to authorize livestock grazing and 

to ensure grazing is conducted in an environmentally acceptable manner. The 

underlying needs for the proposal including improving livestock management in 

compliance with the Forest Plan and improving riparian conditions in specific areas. 

Both Alternatives 1 and 2 would not graze the Water Draw Allotment. The EA 

discusses the impacts of implementing the alternatives. The Decision Notice will 

discuss the rationale for the decision made. 

Actions have been identified for the Water Draw allotment that would be implemented 

prior to livestock use, as described on page 36 and these are related to enhanced 

protection of spring sites and cultural resources. Short- and long-term monitoring 

methods for the allotment are included in Appendix B. MIM evaluates continuous 

segments of perennial streams and associated riparian areas. The perennial streams 

occurring in this allotment are scattered and not connected and do not meet the 

criteria for establishing MIM. 

Comment: We support Alternative 2 for the Water Draw Allotment until better baseline 

data and big game habitat needs are identified. Page 79 of the EA provides unsupported 

calculations for 55% use and generalized carrying capacity and stocking rate calculations. 

Page 85 of the EA states that there are no conflicts with big game and livestock. Perhaps 

this is because no permitted livestock are on the allotment at this time. 

Response: A slight correction has been made to the EA on page 85 to clarify the 

statement about big game and livestock on the Water Draw allotment. 

Your support for Alternative 2 for the Water Draw Allotment has been noted. 

Allowable use is proposed at 50-55% for the Water Draw Allotment, as stated in 

Chapter 3. This is based on allowable guidelines from for the Forest Plan for rest 

rotation systems in satisfactory range condition, as is the case for this allotment. 

This allowable use percentage would be modified as needed over time to ensure 

conditions are at or moving toward desired conditions in a reasonable time frame, 

as described in Table 4 and Table 5. Carrying capacity and stocking rate 

calculations are described in the Rangeland Vegetation section of Chapter 3. The 

project record provides more details on these calculations, including Water Draw. 

The proposed stocking rate for Water Draw is substantially below the calculated 

stocking rate. 

Comment: We recommend the final EA include the following in Table 4 and design 

criteria, as was included in the Mystic Range 2010 DEIS: 

 Restore meadows by removing encroaching conifers 

 Restore or enhance native grass, forbs, shrubs and hardwood species (this would 

include goals to properly manage woody draws, mountain mahogany and aspen) 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

238 

 Change animal behavior or cull problem animals (see Frederick D. Provenza work 

as referenced in our 10/30/09 scoping letter). 

 Reduce undesirable plant species by mechanical, chemical, biological, and 

structural fencing means (i.e. fringed sage, snowberry, smooth brome, cheatgrass, 

thistle, etc.) 

Response: Conifer encroachment treatments and restoration of hardwood species are 

outside the scope of this grazing management-focused analysis. The desired 

conditions for vegetative communities within the project area can be found in Table 2 

on page 9 of the EA. Culling problem animals is also outside the scope of this 

analysis and outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service as these animals are 

privately owned. Reducing undesirable plant species by mechanical, chemical and 

biological means is also outside the scope of this analysis but is addressed to some 

degree by the Forest-wide noxious weed program (cited in Table 9). Use of structural 

fencing to reduce non-native species is included under Option A in Table 4, as 

discussed in more detail above. Restoration or enhancement of native grass, forbs 

and shrubs is an inherent goal of the proposed action since desired conditions for 

vegetation communities in the project area include the prevalence of a diversity of 

native species. Movement toward these conditions is what the project strives for. 

Wyoming Office of Western Watersheds Project 

Comment: The Forest Service needs to provide the rationale for how the proposed action 

complies with applicable Forest Plan direction, standards and guidelines and Watershed 

Conservation Practices handbook direction. Without this critical link, the validity of the 

current assumptions are baseless. 

Response: As stated in a previous response, desired conditions for each allotment’s 

benchmarks and key areas (as summarized in Table 5) were developed based on the 

desired vegetation conditions in the project area (Table 1 and 2) which were 

developed based on guidance from the Forest Plan. Chapter 1 of the EA summarizes 

the project’s relationship to the Forest Plan. Appendix D lists applicable Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines and watershed conservation practices. The Project Design 

Features and Monitoring sections of Chapter 2, which includes allowable use levels, 

are actions integral to implementation of Alternative 2 and 3 and were based on 

relevant Forest Plan direction. 

The Forest has an obligation to show consistency with the Forest Plan; this is done in 

the EA and will also be discussed as part of the decision document for this project. 

Comment: The predictions made in previous NEPA processes need to be disclosed and 

analyzed because if the accuracy is not there, most likely you are making the same 

predictions in the current process. 

Response: The environmental effects of implementing the alternatives are fully 

discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA, including the methods used. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

239 

Comment: If the permittee has failed to properly comply with their permit terms and 

conditions and AMP and AOI requirements, including utilization requirements, rotation 

requirements and fence maintenance then it is absolutely critical to discuss this in the 

document and its effects on the proposed action. Permittee failure to comply with permit 

terms and conditions and other requirements shows two things, firstly that the permittee 

has failed to implement even the minimal standards that are currently in place and 

secondly, it shows that the Forest Service has failed to take decisive permit action to 

ensure compliance. Both of these are very important aspects that must be discussed for a 

valid NEPA process, most especially when the FS as here is relying on adaptive 

management promises. 

Response: Permittee compliance is outside the scope of this analysis. Permittee 

compliance with terms and conditions of the Term Grazing Permit is handled through 

permit administration. The purpose and need for action is based on the differences 

between existing and desired conditions, as described in Chapter 1 of the EA. In 

many areas, rangeland conditions are stable or improving, indicating that past 

management has been working to move areas toward desired conditions. In areas 

where resource concerns have been identified, actions have been proposed to address 

them. The effects analysis contained in the EA assumes that all project design 

features, monitoring and the use of adaptive management would be used to implement 

the proposed action over time. 

A summary of the past history of each allotment is found in Chapter 1 and in the 

Rangeland Vegetation section of Chapter 3. The Range Report in the project file 

contains a detailed history of past practices and current conditions. 

Comment: Another critical component is an examination of the effectiveness of the 

actions taken in previous decisions. A classic example of this is fences and water 

developments. Often, new fences and water developments are proposed to solve riparian 

issues in spite of the fact that these have been used for many decades without correcting 

riparian issues. Doing more of the same that has not lead to good results is not an 

effective strategy for public lands management. 

Response: All proposed actions, project design features and adaptive management 

options are reasonable potential actions designed to address a specific need for 

action. Fencing and water developments, for example, are actions that have been 

used for decades of livestock grazing management that have been successful in 

meeting the need for enhanced water distribution or protection of a riparian area, for 

example. The actions proposed for this specific project were selected based on the 

site-specific conditions on these allotments and are expected to be successful. If they 

are not, other options would be used, as identified in Table 4 of the EA. 

Comment: All of the allotments in question contain significant developed water 

resources and many pastures. The NEPA document provides no information to justify 

more of the same. In a 6 or 10 pasture rotation will adding more pastures solve the 

problem? How far do we go? 20 pastures for 3 days each? It is obvious from the 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

240 

information provided that nearly all the allotments are overstocked. More of the same 

will not solve the problem. 

Response: No allotment in the project is managed under more than a 4-pasture 

system. The need for additional water and pastures in some locations is described in 

Chapters 1 and 2 of the EA. Only the French Creek Allotment, out of the five 

allotments evaluated as part of this project that currently have livestock use, indicates 

a concern with the current stocking rate. In this case, the proposed action includes a 

reduction. The rationale for this is described in Chapter 2 of the EA. 

Comment: FSH 2209.13 93.3a requires: “The team, using an interdisciplinary approach, 

should identify the desired rangeland conditions within the analysis area. Desired 

conditions should be specific, quantifiable, and focused on rangeland resources.” The EIS 

does not comply with this requirement. The so-called Desired Conditions in Table 1-2 are 

general Forest Plan desired conditions and have not been made site-specific for the area 

in question. 

Table 5 lists various existing conditions and "desired conditions" but unfortunately these 

are often too general to be of use. What does a desired condition of “maintain ecological 

processes" mean? From a management perspective it is meaningless. Other aspects such 

as "reduce hummocking" likewise fail to translate into management actions. Reduce it 

from what? Reduce it to what by when? 

Other examples of un-implementable desired conditions are "increase riparian shrubs and 

native species, stable stream banks". 

Response: The reference supplied appears to be an out of date amendment. We 

believe you are referring to FSH 2209.13 Section 92.1, effective 09/09/2005. As 

stated in a previous response, desired conditions for each allotment’s benchmarks 

and key areas (as summarized in Table 5) were developed by the IDT based on the 

broader desired vegetation conditions in the project area (Table 1 and 2) which were 

developed based on the even broader guidance from the Forest Plan. This means that 

site-specific desired conditions were developed as shown in Table 5 and that these 

were created with the desired conditions from the Forest Plan as a starting point. 

This is consistent with Forest Service Handbook direction. 

Clarification has been added to Table 5 addressing the desired condition for areas 

where hummocking has occurred and to elaborate on what is meant by ecological 

processes. Clarification has been added to Appendix B regarding how riparian 

shrubs and streambank stability indicators would be used. 

Comment: FSH 2209.13 93.3c requires: “Identification of resource management needs is 

simply the comparison of desired conditions with existing conditions to determine the 

extent and rate at which current management is meeting or moving toward those desired 

conditions.” The EIS failed to meet this requirement. To say conditions are “moving 

toward” is meaningless without this information. For instance, everyone admits these 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

241 

lands were basically unmanaged until about the 1950’s. Given how severely degraded 

these lands were up through that time, it would not be surprising that things look better 

than 1950, but is that “moving towards” sufficient? 

Response: Both the Range Specialist Report (Bindel 2010a) and the Rangeland 

Vegetation section of the EA (Methodology, page 76) describe the methods used to 

determine movement toward desired conditions. Information used in making this 

determination for a particular site included similarity coefficients, cover frequency 

monitoring results, comparisons to historic data and potential vegetation 

communities based on soil type. 

Comment: FSH 2209.13 93.3f requires: “There is a two-part decision to be made for 

authorizing livestock grazing. The first part is whether livestock grazing should be 

authorized on all, part, or none of the project area.” The EA failed to provide any 

information at all regarding the first requirement. For instance, developed recreational 

sites are generally considered not suitable for livestock grazing due to their significant 

conflicts. The document Rocky Mountain Region - Process Paper: A Process to 

Determine Capability and Suitability and Standards for NEPA Display likewise discuss 

this issue. Significant areas within the analysis area are developed recreation sites and 

should not be considered part of the suitable grazing area. 

Response: Alternative 1 provides a comparison of the effects of not authorizing 

grazing in the project area. 

Suitable and capable rangelands are discussed in the Rangeland Vegetation section 

of Chapter 3. Lands not suitable for grazing include some administrative sites, 

exclosures and some areas specifically closed to grazing. You are correct that 

developed recreation sites in the project area are not considered suitable grazing 

areas. These areas (which include Tepee administrative site and Commanche Park) 

were accounted for in the suitability and capability determinations for these 

allotments. 

Comment: As is universal within Forest Service grazing NEPA processes, the defining 

of the adaptive management process in this case is woefully inadequate. The EA cites 

neither FSH 2209.13 and the R2 Quimby document, and the EA does not actually 

implement the requirements of either. We request that you review the R2 Adaptive 

Management Guidance document which clearly defines the minimum level of adaptive 

management. 

FSH 2209.13 93.3g defines adaptive management as: Adaptive management is an 

interdisciplinary planning and implementation process that provides for: 1) identification 

of site specific desired conditions; 2) definition of appropriate decision criteria 

(constraints) to guide management; 3) identification of pre-determined optional courses 

of action, as part of a proposed action, from which to adjust management decisions over 

time; and 4) establishment of carefully focused project monitoring to be used to make 

adaptive adjustments in management over time. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

242 

As stated previously, the DC’s laid out in the EA are general and not for specific 

benchmark areas and as such don’t meet the requirement of the FSH. Additionally, as 

discussed in more detail in the Quimby document, “pre-determined” means “if this... 

then that”, not just a general ‘toolbox’ with everything stuffed into it. And lastly, the 

EIS’s “monitoring plan” could hardly be called “carefully focused” 

We attach the cited Quimby document with key sections highlighted. These sections need 

to be thoroughly reviewed as the EIS does not implement most of them. 

Response: The proposed action and its proposed use of adaptive management was 

developed with Forest Service handbook direction, Forest Plan direction, and all 

relevant regional guidance, including the Quimby document. The EA has been 

updated to include reference to regional direction. 

Comment: We also include as an attachment a useful document written by the US Fish 

and Wildlife Service on how to write goals and objectives. This document meshes closely 

with the R2 document discussed above. 

Response: Thank you for providing this document. 

Comment: Virtually every so-called "tool" the Forest Service wishes to have as part of 

adaptive management, has been available to it for decades. Most of these tools are part of 

the normal permit administration process. 

The falsity of the Forest Service’s purported need for “flexibility” is clearly exposed in 

FSH 2209.13 – 92 which states: “The majority of these changes can be implemented 

administratively, provided the changes do not fall outside the scope of the NEPA 

decision. Examples of actions that may be taken without further NEPA analysis include 

alteration of management to respond to Biological Opinions or other ESA, Clean Water 

Act, or other consultation requirements; changes in specific dates of grazing, class of 

livestock to be grazed, grazing systems, or livestock numbers based on evaluation of 

monitoring results; and, implementation of the LRMP through modifications to the term 

grazing permit. Administrative actions to implement higher level decisions or to respond 

to monitoring results should be undertaken as a routine administrative action prior to 

initiating NEPA.” 

Response: The handbook states that ‘administrative actions within the defined limits 

of the resultant NEPA-based decisions can then be implemented without additional 

NEPA.” Since these six allotments do not have sufficient NEPA to satisfy the 

requirements of the 1995 Rescission Act, the Hell Canyon District Ranger initiated 

and prepared an EA to comply with NEPA and other laws and regulations. All 

proposed actions, project design features and adaptive management options are 

reasonable potential actions designed to address a specific need for action. The 

actions proposed for this specific project were selected based on the site-specific 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

243 

conditions on these allotments and are expected to be successful. If they are not, other 

options would be used, as identified in Table 4 of the EA. 

The Forest Service agrees that the agency has the latitude in some situations to take 

administrative actions under livestock grazing permits without additional NEPA 

analysis, and that some of these actions are listed in Table 4 of the EA. However, the 

intent of the NEPA analysis for this project is to comprehensively evaluate a 

reasonable range of alternatives to meet the purpose and need and to fully evaluate 

an adaptive management approach to management. This includes fully evaluating 

the options that may be used over the course of implementation. 

Comment: In the species calls sections the Forest Service lists most species as "may 

adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning 

area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or loss of species of viability range wide" but the 

document fails to provide any information regarding current populations or trends which 

is of course fundamental to a supportable call. For instance, if there are 30 individual 

plants of a particular species in the planning area or even in the forest as a whole is that a 

viable population? Would affecting 6 of those individuals not likely result in a loss of 

viability, assuming viability currently exists? This information is not provided. 

Response: The Wildlife Report and the Biological Assessment/Evaluation (Clark 

2010a and 2010b) provide a comprehensive evaluation of relevant wildlife species. 

These documents were used in preparation of the Wildlife Section of Chapter 3 of the 

EA and include further information regarding population viability and 

determinations for analyzed species. This section of the EA discusses the direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects to each species or group of species and the rationale 

for the determinations of effect. More detail in this rationale is provided in the 

Wildlife Report and the Biological Assessment/ Evaluation. These documents are 

available in the project record. 

Comment: The EA fails to discuss actual use within the allotments. Actual use is critical 

because frequently actual use is significantly lower than permitted use. Therefore the 

analyses of current conditions must be based on the fact of actual use not permitted use. 

For instance if 1000 head are permitted on a particular allotment but the 20 year average 

is only 500 head then current conditions are, of course, the result of actual use half that of 

permitted use. So analyses based on full permitted use would be vitiated. Such 

information is fundamental to a valid NEPA process. 

Response: Actual use within the allotments was considered in the evaluation. The 

Rangeland Vegetation Report (Bindel 2010) provides a history of both actual use and 

permitted use. Actual use was a factor considered in evaluating rangeland capability 

and stocking rates on each allotment as discussed in the Rangeland Vegetation 

section of Chapter 3. 

Comment: Much of the analysis area is crucial winter range but the EA fails to provide 

any differing utilization rates for these areas. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

244 

Response: The relationship of the project area to Management Area 5.4 and big 

game winter range is addressed in previous responses to comments in this document 

that raised this same concern. 

Comment: Maintenance of range improvements is a permit term and is required in each 

AOI as a precondition for turnout. When you add these together, the only rational 

conclusion is that the Forest Service has never enforced these requirements. Why would 

anyone think all of a sudden that the FS will? 

While the EA fails to discuss the issue, most of the current water developments are within 

riparian areas or directly adjacent to streams. This is an important issue that needs to be 

discussed. 

Response: Maintenance of range improvements is discussed in the Project Design 

Criteria section of Chapter 2. Allotment management plans will be written based on 

the alternative selected for implementation, as documented in a decision document 

for this project. The allotment management plan is the implementation document by 

which the Forest Service will communicate to the permittee on planned actions based 

on the decision. Maintenance of range improvements will be a component of the 

AMP. How the AMP is ultimately implemented and enforced is outside the scope of 

this NEPA analysis. 

Comment: No information whatsoever is provided regarding the location of the proposed 

water developments. The maps provided as an appendix likewise failed to provide any 

information that would allow for a site-specific analysis of the impacts of the proposed 

developments. Knowing much of this area, frequently riparian areas are fairly thin strips 

between fairly steep slopes. This would lead to the conclusion that most of the water 

developments proposed will be very near or within riparian areas. The document provides 

no information on this critical topic 

Response: All existing and proposed water developments are included on allotment 

maps contained in Appendix A of the EA. Larger scale maps are available in the 

project record. Implementation of all proposed actions would be guided by project 

design features. There are several design features that apply to riparian areas and 

additional site-specific evaluations for sensitive species and archeological sites, as 

described in the Project Design Features section of Chapter 2. 

If there were concerns raised by the IDT with any existing water development or its 

location, these have either been addressed with a specific proposed action in 

Alternative 3 (see Table 5 and the narrative descriptions for Alternative 3), with 

enhanced monitoring (See Appendix B) or through priorities for maintenance (see 

Project Design Features in Chapter 2). 

Comment: As is often the case with NEPA processes implementing adaptive 

management, we found no evidence within the NEPA document that the range of actions 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

245 

proposed as adaptive management had been actually analyzed for impacts or 

effectiveness. Further, we found no specific monitoring or measurable triggers or 

timelines which are necessary to define the adaptive management process. Adaptive 

management is solely based on monitoring as its foundation yet the Forest Service 

provided no commitment to conduct this monitoring. 

Again for the short or long-term monitoring we found no commitment, locations, triggers 

or measurable objectives. 

FSH 2209.13 94.2 requires: “The evaluation of a proposed action’s environmental effects 

must include the potential effects of all adaptive management options that may be 

implemented at some future point in time. For example if one potential option is to fence 

off a riparian area, the effects of that fence must be evaluated even if that management 

option may never actually be implemented.” 

This was not done in the EA. 

Response: Appendix E of the EA summarizes the direct/indirect and cumulative 

effects from implementing adaptive management options. Appendix B of the EA 

includes a monitoring plan for each allotment. The monitoring plan includes trigger 

points for change. Some additional detail has been added to the monitoring plan 

which clarifies how changes would be measured. 

Comment: The impact section regarding water quality ignores the issue of E. coli 

contamination. 

Response: The effect of livestock feces deposition in streams and uplands and the 

potential for this to impact water quality is described in the Water and Soil section of 

Chapter 3 and is based on a detailed evaluation to soil and water resources, 

including water quality, in the Soil and Water Report (Gonyer 2010). More detail has 

been added to this section regarding the potential for E.coli contamination. 

Comment: We found no map of areas meeting or not meeting desired conditions. 

Response: Allotment maps with pasture boundaries are included in Appendix A of the 

EA. These maps show benchmark monitoring locations. Table 5 and Appendix B list 

benchmarks for each allotment and which ones are meeting or are not meeting 

desired conditions. 

Comment: The MIS section fails to comply with the extensive case law regarding 

management and analysis of MIS species. We request that the Forest Service read 

through this wide range of case law and correct its analysis in order to comply with 

NEPA and NFMA. 

Response: Management Indicator Species relevant to this analysis are described and 

discussed in the Wildlife Section in Chapter 3 of the EA. Direct/indirect and 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

246 

cumulative effects are summarized in Table 15 and in the narrative portion of this 

section. The summary of effects to MIS as described in the EA is based on a detailed 

evaluation of MIS contained in the Wildlife Report (Clark 2010) which is available in 

the project record. The analysis used complies with all current Forest Service 

direction. 

Comment: The EA states that general capability and suitability determinations were 

made at the Forest Plan level, but ignores the requirements of FSH 2209.13 – 91 which 

states: “Although an area may be deemed suitable for use by livestock in a LRMP, a 

project level decision evaluating the site-specific impacts of the grazing activity, in 

conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is required in order to 

authorize livestock grazing on specific allotment(s)” 

Response: Suitable and capable rangelands are discussed in the Rangeland 

Vegetation section of Chapter 3. 

Comment: Although the NEPA document states that "the project's main focus is to 

determine whether or not livestock grazing should continue on the proposed allotments", 

but nowhere within the NEPA document was there any examination whether livestock 

should not be continued. Even in areas such as developed recreation sites where the 

Forest plan specifically states livestock grazing should not occur no analysis of 

continuing livestock grazing in these areas was done. 

Response: Suitable and capable rangelands are discussed in the Rangeland 

Vegetation section of Chapter 3. Lands not suitable for grazing include some 

administrative sites, exclosures and some areas specifically closed to grazing. You 

are correct that developed recreation sites are not considered suitable grazing areas. 

These areas were accounted for in the suitability and capability determinations for 

these allotments. 

Under Alternative 1 – No Action, livestock would no longer be authorized with the 

project area. The environmental consequences of implementing this alternative are 

included in Chapter 3 of the EA. 

Comment: Stunningly, the NEPA document mentions large numbers of water 

developments and miles of pipeline currently exist within the allotments in question. This 

is a stunning density of fences and water developments and the Forest Service proposes 

more, but provides no logic why such an incredibly high level of investment has resulted 

in the current degraded conditions. Nor why more of the same would result in resolution 

of these issues. This violates NEPA. 

The absurdity of additional so-called "range improvements" is clearly shown with current 

conditions. For instance the bull flouts allotment with a total of only 83 cows currently 

has 2 spring developments, 2 wells, 19 ponds, 10 tanks and 4 miles of pipeline. This is 

nearly one water development for every 2 cows. Could it be seen as rational the 

allotments with such massive levels of infrastructure should need more? 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

247 

And then the question comes if this massive level of development is not corrected the 

resource issues facing these allotments will more of the same to it? It's absurd. 

Response: In general, neither upland nor riparian conditions are currently degraded 

as described in Chapter 1 of the EA. As stated in Chapter 1, recent vegetation 

monitoring data show that upland rangeland conditions on all allotments are 

improving. Soil stability and ecological processes are functioning properly on all six 

allotments based on recent soil and watershed monitoring data. While movement 

toward desired riparian conditions is evident in some areas, continued improvement 

in grazing management is needed to address these site-specific riparian-related 

concerns. Actions proposed under Alternative 3 are designed to address these 

concerns. Chapter 3 of the EA described the consequences of implementing each 

alternative. The Livestock Grazing and Economics section of Chapter 3 describes 

social and economic implications. These economic and social considerations are 

weighed and balanced by the decision-maker along with environmental consequences 

of alternatives and how the alternatives address the purpose and need for action. 

Comment: The NEPA document states that "initially this would be 4” for key species 

(University of Idaho, 2004)” but nothing within the University of Idaho's stubble height 

review recommended a foreign stubble height. In fact it does just the opposite stating that 

a stubble height objective alone is insufficient and not a good management objective. In 

fact, in one of only 2 places discussing a specific height, it cites Clary and Leininger "15 

to 20 cm (6-8”) may be required to limit streambank trampling and to reduce willow 

browsing". Nearly every description of degraded riparian conditions within the allotments 

in question mentioned excessive streambank trampling and willow browsing. This is an 

abuse of science. 

Response: Stubble heights are described in the monitoring section of Chapter 2, in 

the project design features section of Chapter 2 and are listed in Appendix B for each 

allotment as part of the monitoring plan. Stubble height standards come from the 

Watershed Conservation Practices handbook which is summarized in Appendix D. 

We are unclear where the quote and discussion in your comment is found in the EA. 

Stubble height is an annual monitoring tool or indicator to aid in meeting resource 

management objectives and is used in combination with long-term monitoring of 

vegetation and channel parameters. 

Stubble heights for this project are initially set at 4 to 6 inches (starting point) by the 

IDT, based on the recommendations from the University of Idaho’s 2004 Stubble 

Height Study Report. If monitoring shows that the riparian area/stream is not 

improving and trending towards desired conditions, additional adaptive management 

option(s) may be implemented, one of which could be increasing stubble height. This 

is covered in Chapter 2 of the EA. Deferred rotation strategies are part of the 

Proposed Action, Alternative 3; rest rotation is proposed for the Water Draw 

Allotment (Table 3 and Table 5). GTR-INT-263 also states that while a grazing 

system is helpful, the level of utilization occurring on site is the most important 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

248 

consideration, hence the stubble height requirement. Additionally, the GTR states that 

specially designed grazing systems that control the degree and timing of livestock use 

in the riparian area can be highly beneficial. 

Comment: The Forest Service’s GTR-INT-263 specifically states "a 6 step planning 

process for praising riparian zones has been suggested (in part from Dwyer and others 

1984). This was not done. This document also provides guidance regarding managing 

riparian areas for critical fisheries and for repairing degraded systems. It also "suggested 

initial actions" based on ecological status and channel type. It states that for “B channel 

types with medium to fine easily eroded soil materials and most C channel types: apply 

rest until the ecological status improves". This is where many of the streams within the 

project area fall. It continues for areas with habitats were threatened, endangered or 

sensitive species "or where a stream banks/channels are highly erodible: the herbaceous 

stubble height criterion may need to be increased to greater than 6 inches" 

Response: The GTR-INT-263; Managing Grazing of Riparian Areas in the 

Intermountain Region by Warren P. Clary and Bert F. Webster was reviewed by 

Interdisciplinary Team specialists and was used during the preparation of the EA. 

GTR-INT-263 was published in 1989. Since then new methods have been created to 

assess and monitor riparian areas. The method that the Hell Canyon Ranger District 

is using is MIM (Multiple Indicator Monitoring). This tool provides an efficient and 

effective approach to monitoring streambanks, stream channels and riparian 

vegetation. This is a good tool to inventory the current conditions and also come 

back to the same site to measure the trend to see if condition are improving or 

deteriorating. MIM benchmarks have been established on several of the project area 

allotments. Suitability and capability of rangelands is addressed in the Rangeland 

Vegetation section of Chapter 3 of the EA. 

GTR-INT-263 also supports livestock removal; the EA calls for movement of livestock 

before upland and/or riparian benchmarks are exceeded (Page 38). 

Comment: Findings from BLM researcher Lewis H. Myers regarding success of grazing 

systems should have been used in the analysis 

Response: the Forest Service was unable to locate this paper. 

Comment: Forest Service researcher William S. Platts in Compatibility of Livestock 

Grazing Strategies with Fisheries 1989 found that deferred-rotation to be only “fair” at 

restoring degraded riparian conditions. It also found this system rated as 4 on a scale of 1 

to 10. This should have been used in the analysis 

Response: This document was reviewed by the IDT. Many of the recommendations 

made in the document are already part of the proposed action, design criteria or are 

adaptive management strategies. Deferred rotation strategies are part of the 

Proposed Action, Alternative 3; rest rotation is proposed for the Water Draw 

Allotment (Table 3 and Table 5). GTR-INT-263 states that while a grazing system is 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

249 

helpful, the level of utilization occurring on site is the most important consideration, 

hence the stubble height requirement. Additionally, the GTR states that specially 

designed grazing systems that control the degree and timing of livestock use in the 

riparian area can be highly beneficial. 

Comment: The recently issued BLM/FS publication TR 1737-20 Grazing Management 

Processes and Strategies for Riparian and Wetland Areas, which states "He (Myers 

1989a) found that successful treatments averaged only 12.5 days whereas on successful 

treatments averaged 33.4 days" discussing the duration of hot season grazing used within 

riparian areas. This document also goes into detail regarding the development of riparian 

objectives and monitoring programs which have been ignored in the current process. 

Response: The section of TR 1737-20 that cites Meyers was considered in the 

development of the alternatives for this EA. The EA addresses riparian objectives 

(desired conditions) and a specified monitoring plan (Appendix B) using MIM 

protocol. 

Comment: The EIS states "if monitoring does not indicate progress towards desired 

conditions, it may be necessary to change proper allowable use percent utilization by 

weight from 50% to 45%, and/or increase residual riparian stubble height to 6 inches." 

Unfortunately, the desired conditions laid out in the NEPA document are so general as to 

provide little useful information. In addition, no rate of change has been defined. And 

thirdly the absurdity of monitoring with a confidence level that would be able to 

differentiate 50% from 45% which would require probably 100 data points which would 

never happen. 

Response: We are unclear where the quote and discussion in your comment is found 

in the EA. Please refer to previous responses that pertain to specificity of desired 

conditions and monitoring plan measurements. 

Comment: Even though the forest plan requires the development of a drought 

management policy this was not done within the document. 

Response: The Forest Plan does not require the development of drought management 

policy. 

Comment: While management area 3.1 Botanical Areas cover only a tiny fraction of the 

forest, the NEPA document fails to provide information regarding why livestock grazing 

is currently compatible with this use. 

Response: Management Area 3. 1 does not occur in the project area. Management 

Areas within the project area are described in Table 1 of Chapter 1 of the EA. 

Comment: While the general desired conditions for riparian areas is to "maintain 

riparian plant communities that provide overhanging vegetation...” nothing within the 

document provides direction to achieve this. Obviously a minuscule 4 inch stubble height 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

250 

could never provide "overhanging vegetation". Similarly issues with streambank 

alteration or mentioned repeatedly yet know annual streambank alteration requirements 

or triggers have been implemented. Without having an annual alteration trigger you will 

not be reaching streambank stability long-term goals. This is an obvious deficiency. 

Response: Riparian plant communities that provide overhanging vegetation would be 

achieved by moving livestock at appropriate times. The triggers to move livestock to 

the next pasture are stubble height and utilization standards. Long-term monitoring 

with MIMs would see if the riparian plant communities are at desired condition or 

moving towards the desired conditions. If conditions are not moving toward the 

desired conditions, the triggers will be changed and/or adaptive management 

measures will be implemented until desired condition are met or condition are 

moving that direction. 

Streambank stability is a long-term monitoring item and is monitored using MIMs. 

Monitoring annual alteration is not needed to achieve streambank stability goals. 

The key to reach the streambank stability goal is to move livestock at the appropriate 

time; riparian stubble height and upland vegetation utilization standards are good 

items to annually monitor and trigger livestock movement. Short-term monitoring is 

discussed starting on Page 39 of the EA. 

Comment: In the discussion of current conditions we see the use of "meeting", "moving 

towards desired conditions" and "not meeting" but from the information provided the 

"moving towards desired condition" category has been used without basis. It seems to be 

a catchall between the 2 other categories but nothing within the document indicates 

information that would lead to a rational conclusion that the conditions described are 

actually "moving towards". 

Response: Both the Range Specialist Report (Bindel 2010a) and the Rangeland 

Vegetation section of the EA (Methodology, page 76) describe the methods used to 

determine movement toward desired conditions. Information used in making this 

determination for a particular site included similarity coefficients, cover frequency 

monitoring results, comparisons to historic data and potential vegetation 

communities based on soil type. 

Comment: Despite the fact that the EA discusses various resource concerns all pointing 

towards overstocking of the allotments, the NEPA document provides no process to 

reduce permits based on actual move dates. From what we can gather no changes in 

permitted use will be done. 

Response: As stated in Chapter 1, recent vegetation monitoring data show that 

upland rangeland conditions on all allotments are improving. Soil stability and 

ecological processes are functioning properly on all six allotments based on recent 

soil and watershed monitoring data. Overstocking is not an issue on these six 

allotments. Alternative 3 includes a reduction in permitted use on the French Creek 

Allotment due to resource concerns. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

251 

While movement toward desired riparian conditions is evident in some areas, 

continued improvement in grazing management is needed to address site-specific 

riparian-related concerns. Actions proposed under Alternative 3 are designed to 

address these concerns on all allotments. In addition, the suite of adaptive 

management options listed in Table 4 includes a reduction in livestock number, AMs 

or season of use (Table 4, row N) if monitoring results indicate a change is needed. 

Chapter 2 of the EA also describes the consideration of an alternative to reduce 

stocking instead of installing range improvements. 

Comment: Parts of the document discusses a similarity coefficient but provide no 

information regarding how this is calculated. This is important information because it 

seems from the information provided that the Forest Service may be including non-native 

species in this similarity coefficient resulting in excessively high numbers. 

Response: Similarity coefficients are described in Chapter 1 of the EA. More detail 

on how this is calculated in provided in the Rangeland Vegetation Report (Bindel 

2010) which is available in the project record. A definition has been added to the EA 

glossary and to Chapter 1 of the EA which provides more detail on use of this 

methodology. 

Comment: The proposed action is supposedly to "move toward the desired conditions in 

acceptable time frame" but as we have stated previously the desired conditions are neither 

site-specific nor measurable in nearly all cases and no timeframe for their 

accomplishment is provided. 

Response: As stated in the EA in Chapter 2 under Alternative 3, actions would likely 

occur over a 10 year period, the life span of the grazing permit. This does not mean 

that actions would take 10 years to be implemented, only that through the course of 

initial proposed actions, monitoring and adaptive management options when 

necessary, the sum total of implementation of all of these actions would occur over 

the 10-year life span of the permit. The monitoring plans in Appendix B also describe 

timeframes for monitoring (with priority given to monitoring on the French Creek 

Allotment) and trigger points. 

As stated in a previous response, a prioritized implementation plan and schedule, 

with estimated cost, has been prepared for Alternative 3 by the project 

interdisciplinary team and will be updated if needed, reviewed and approved by the 

Line Officer at the time of his decision documenting selection of an alternative for 

implementation and used in the subsequent Allotment Management Plans. Actions 

have been categorized into priority groups for implementation based in part on the 

type of resource concern they are proposed to address, recognizing that 

implementation is dependent on available staff and funding. This document is 

available in the project record. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

252 

Comment: The document also states that "maximum allowable forage utilization would 

range from 40 to 50% depending on the vegetation type in the current range conditions" 

but no information or mapping is provided to show either the public, the Forest Service or 

the permittee where the various forage utilization limits are applicable. This is of course 

critical to management. 

Response: Allowable use is discussed in Table 5 of the EA for each allotment and is 

based on the allowable use standards as described in the Project Design Features 

section of Chapter 2. 

Comment: Even though the riparian conditions are the primary issue within the analysis 

area, the EA states "stubble height standards would be established for key species in 

riparian areas" but fails to provide information as to what these standards are or how they 

would be applied. This vitiates the analyses provided in the EA. How can the specialists 

determine the impacts of the proposed action if they do not know what the stubble height 

requirements will be. 

Page 40 mentions various short-term monitoring methods and mentions stubble height 

being "measurements of the residual amount of carex species taken along the green line." 

Unfortunately, most of the riparian areas have been poorly managed and have been 

converted to shallow rooted species such as the non-native invasive Kentucky bluegrass 

and dandelion. 

Response: Stubble heights would be within the range of 4 inches to 6 inches, as 

described in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (Appendix D of the 

EA). This means that during periodic monitoring throughout the grazing season in 

the particular key area, stubble heights would be measured; where the use falls 

within that range of 4 to 6 inches in relation to the timing of the pasture move date 

would be used to determine if livestock need to be moved from that pasture before the 

scheduled move date. 

This has been clarified in the proposed action description for each allotment in 

Chapter 2. 

Comment: For the French Creek allotment the Forest Service plans to reduce use for a 

two-year period but then return to the same numbers and seasons of use but cause the 

severely degraded conditions currently observed there. This is illogical. Again, the EA 

states if "existing conditions along French Creek are not moving toward desired 

conditions in a reasonable timeframe" but as we have stated before the desired conditions 

are not measurable in no timeframe has been provided. 

Response: This is not correct. As stated in Chapter 2 of the EA, certain actions on the 

French Creek allotment would occur immediately under Alternative 3. These include 

reduction in the number of head on the allotment and a reduction in the number of 

days of use for the remaining livestock for the first 2 years in the French Creek 

pasture. A range rider, which has not been used in the past, would also be used to 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

253 

keep livestock from the riparian areas along French Creek. After these 2 years of 

initial change, the pasture would be added to the rotation with the other four 

pastures. The reduction in stocking would remain in effect. In order to provide 

enough time to determine if the four-pasture, deferred rotation grazing system is 

successful, year 6 was identified as the time when an adaptive management option 

such as fencing the creek or removing livestock completely from this pasture would 

be taken if the deferred rotation system was not working. In a 4-pasture deferred 

system, the French Creek pasture would be used every year but at different times of 

the year. This timeframe allows for determining if the revised system is working or 

not. Short-term monitoring would be done throughout this trial period to watch for 

yearly fluctuations. Clarification has been added to this section of Chapter 2 to 

ensure this strategy is clear. 

The monitoring plan prioritizes the French Creek allotment and provides timeframes. 

As stated in previous responses, an implementation plan has also been drafted by the 

interdisciplinary team that including priorities for implementation and a tentative 

schedule for Alternative 3. 

Comment: Starting on page 37 various so-called "design criteria" have been enumerated. 

For instance "evaluate utilization and adjust pastor move dates and move off dates based 

on allowable use of standards", while this is a good thing to do nothing within the rest of 

the document implements this. Additionally "roads providing access to rangeland 

improvements would be evaluated and maintained as needed on a case-by-case basis" but 

the EA fails to do that. 

Response: Design criteria are integral to the implementation of Alternative 3 and the 

evaluation of effects in Chapter 3 is based on the implementation of these criteria. 

Utilization evaluations are included in the monitoring plan in Appendix B, with 

specific trigger points. 

Clarification has been added to the criteria regarding road maintenance so it is more 

clear what this refers to. At the time of development of the alternatives, no road 

maintenance needs were identified. 

Comment: While recovery of impacted willows and other woody species is an issue 

within the analysis area the EA fails to provide any research or analysis that could lead to 

a reasoned conclusion that allowing 40% utilization would result in recovery. 

Response: The standard for 40% use comes from the Forest Plan and is considered 

proper use. It applies to both wildlife and livestock use of the total individual leaders 

produced in that year (Appendix D and Chapter 2). Monitoring would be used to 

determine if meeting this standard over time results in recovery or not at that 

particular site; if it does not, adaptive management options would be selected for 

implementation. 
Hell Canyon Range 2010 Environmental Assessment

254 

Comment: The programmatic agreement between the Forest Service and SHPO requires 

a Class III survey within all areas of overlap between livestock concentration areas, 

including riparian areas and areas with a high probability for cultural resources. The 

NEPA document does not provide information to indicate that these class III surveys 

have been completed. 

Response: Cultural resource surveys are discussed in the Cultural Resources section 

of Chapter 3 and disclose that the survey strategy used was approved by the SHPO. A 

clarification has been added to the methodology section to show that surveys have 

been conducted and are complete. 

Comment: The NEPA document needs to provide soil properties such as erosion and 

compaction ratings overlapping capable acres and provide determination based on 

capable acres to provide the information necessary to analyze the impacts of livestock 

grazing on sensitive soils. 

Response: Detrimentally impacted soils, soils with high erosion hazard ratings and 

soil compaction were all used in the analysis and are described in the Soil and Water 

Section of Chapter 3 and fully evaluated in the Soil and Water Report (Gonyer 2010) 

available in the project record. 

Comment: The NEPA document fails to provide a rationale as to how the unspecified 

stubble height will meet the requirements of the various snails, reptiles and amphibians 

currently listed as sensitive species. 

Response: Stubble heights are specified and would be within 4 and 6 inches. The 

Wildlife Section of Chapter 3 provides an evaluation of the potential impacts of all 

alternatives on all relevant wildlife species. 

Comment: Could you please send me copies of the following documents referenced in 

the EA: 

1) Heady 1961 

2) O’Reagain and Turner 1992 

3) Ash and Stafford 1996 

4) Holechek et al 2001 

5) All specialist’s reports 

Response: This request is being processed through a separate Freedom of 

Information Action request.